Doesn't the rule prohibiting Soc Sec from negotiating for lower drug prices date back to GWB?

[Kyblue1]

I haven’t heard any journalist mention the fact that it was during the administration of GWB that this rule was imposed. When AARP supported the rule I quit that organization.

[dflprincess]

1. It does.

It happened when the Part D coverage was being negotiated.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Yes. It was baked into the Medicare Part D legislation...

by repubs, of course. Everybody else negotiates, that law explicitly forbids Medicare from doing it.

[genxlib]

3. It was worse than that

The Republican that was instrumental in putting the rule in went straight to work for the Pharma industry. It is one of the ugliest cases of payoff in recent history.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/374035-ex-congressman-still-costing-taxpayers-billions-in-prescription-fees/

Former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R,D-La.) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America championed the “non-interference clause” being added to the Social Security law. According to 60 Minutes, Tauzin was responsible for successfully shepherding through Congress the bill limiting the government’s ability to bargain for better drug prices.

This was quite a “win” for the pharmaceutical industry and a loss for the American taxpayer. What happened to Tauzin? Surprise, surprise, he retired from Congress sometime after securing the favorable restriction and accepted a position as president of a trade association where he received $2 million a year.

Which trade association is paying him $2 million a year? I know you will find this shocking: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.