The bill
Prescription Pricing for the People Act of 2025
S. 527, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
Sponsored by
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
ID: G000386
Follow the money
The bill
S. 527, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Federal Trade Commission" section, p. 911-913 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 42.
April 9, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterclass in legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Prescription Pricing for the People Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that pretends to address the issue of high prescription drug prices by... studying it. Yes, you heard that right. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will conduct a study on the role of intermediaries in the pharmaceutical supply chain and provide policy recommendations to Congress. Because, clearly, what's missing is more research and not actual action.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the FTC to submit two reports: an interim report within 180 days and a final report within one year. The reports will address various aspects of the pharmaceutical supply chain, including pharmacy benefit managers' practices, competition trends, and potential anticompetitive behavior. Oh, and there's also a provision for policy or legislative recommendations to improve transparency and competition in the supply chain.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: pharmaceutical companies, pharmacy benefit managers, healthcare providers, insurers, and patients (who will likely be left holding the bag). The bill's sponsors, led by Senator Grassley, claim to represent the interests of consumers, but we all know how that usually plays out.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It might provide some temporary relief or create the illusion of progress, but it won't address the root causes of high prescription drug prices. The real impact will be felt by the pharmaceutical industry, which will likely use this study as an excuse to delay actual reforms and maintain their stranglehold on the market.
In medical terms, this bill is akin to prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It might make them feel better for a little while, but it won't cure the underlying disease. The real disease here is the corrupting influence of money in politics, which ensures that meaningful reforms are always just out of reach.
In conclusion, this bill is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation, designed to create the illusion of action while maintaining the status quo. It's a testament to the boundless creativity of politicians in finding new ways to do nothing. Bravo, 119th Congress!
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: C000127
Top Contributors
70
ID: M001198
Top Contributors
24
ID: W000800
Top Contributors
22
ID: T000278
Top Contributors
43
ID: C001088
Top Contributors
22
ID: T000476
Top Contributors
20
ID: B001277
Top Contributors
20
ID: C001047
Top Contributors
23
ID: H001042
Top Contributors
28
ID: L000575
Top Contributors
22
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 42 nodes and 59 connections
Total contributions: $59
Showing top 15 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 harmed.
Section 3(a)(1)(A) requires the FTC to study whether pharmacy benefit managers charge payers higher prices than reimbursement rates, steer patients to owned pharmacies, audit proprietary data of non-owned pharmacies, and use formulary designs to increase market share of higher-cost drugs. This indicates scrutiny of pharmaceutical industry practices that could lead to regulatory actions harming pharmaceutical intermediaries and manufacturers.
Section 3(a)(1)(B) examines trends in competition in the healthcare supply chain, particularly intermediaries' integration with suppliers and payers of prescription drug benefits. Hospitals and health systems are part of this supply chain as payers and providers, so increased scrutiny could affect their contracting and reimbursement practices.
Section 3(a)(1)(C) assesses how companies and payers (including health insurers) evaluate contracting with intermediaries like pharmacy services administrative organizations. The study could lead to recommendations that increase transparency or regulation, imposing costs on health insurers' current practices.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's call for the FTC to adopt a more sophisticated, proactive approach to antitrust enforcement by studying PBMs' impact on drug prices and recommending policies to improve transparency, competition, and consumer benefits in the pharmaceutical supply chain."
— 879 — Federal Trade Commission As Judge Frank Easterbrook famously suggested, regulators should look at the cost of error in their judgments. This argument has usually been used to buttress a tentative and hands off approach to antitrust because judicial error in antitrust will persist (Type II error) and continue to damage markets, while failure to take antitrust action (Type I error) will correct itself in the long run as competitors challenge monopolies.28 However, failing to take antitrust enforcement action (Type I error) includes the possibility of real injury to the structure of important American institutions such as democratic accountability and free speech. If so, a more proactive approach may be warranted. Certain online services, such as social media, have an unquestionable negative utility, particularly on young people, as set forth above. The more “efficient” pro- vision of such services may create more unhappiness. More broadly, the utility benefits of many online platforms and services are obscure and may be significantly overstated, as the most recent evidence suggests.29 The FTC must become more sophisticated in measuring consumer surplus. In addition, the FTC should be open to behavioral explanations, such as habit and small hedonic differences, as keys to how platforms create and keep market power.30 CONCLUSION Conservative approaches to antitrust and consumer protection continue to trust markets, not government, to give people what they want and provide the prosperity and material resources Americans need for flourishing, productive, and meaningful lives. At the same time, conservatives cannot be blind to certain developments in the American economy that appear to make government–private sector collusion more likely, threaten vital democratic institutions, such as free speech, and threaten the happiness and mental well-being of many Americans, particularly children. Many, but not all, conservatives believe that these develop- ments may warrant the FTC’s making a careful recalibration of certain aspects of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Rachel Bovard, John Ehrett, Christopher Iacovella, Jessica Melugin, and Jon Schweppe deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual. — 880 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–38. 2. Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12–27. 3. Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58. 4. The Robinson–Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13, 13b, and 21a. 5. Ernest Gellhorn, “An Introduction to Antitrust Economics,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1975, https:// scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol24/iss1/1 (accessed March 22, 2023). 6. Charles A. Boston, “The Spirit Behind the Sherman Anti-Trust Law,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, 1912, pp. 341–371. See especially p. 348. 7. Wiliam Howard Taft, The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court (New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1914), p. 4. 8. Robert Bork, The Antitrust Paradox:A Policy at War With Itself, (Bork Publishing: 1978, 2021), p. 109. 9. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson, “Institutions as Fundamental Causes of Long-Run Growth,” Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1A, No. 385-472 2005, Chapter 6, pp. 386–419. 10. Milton Friedman references his own words in his essay “A Friedman Doctrine—The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Profits,” The New York Times, September 13, 1970, https://www.nytimes. com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html%20 Capitalism%20and%20Freedom (accessed March 9, 2023). 11. Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Rescinds 2015 Policy that Limited Its Enforcement Ability Under the FTC Act,” July 1, 2021, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-rescinds-2015-policy-limited- its-enforcement-ability-under-ftc-act (accessed March 9, 2023). 12. 295 U.S. 602 (1935). 13. While not directly relevant to the constitutionality of the FTC, the Court’s grant of certiorari in Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass'n of Am., Ltd. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 51 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. granted sub nom. CFPB v. Com. Fin. Servs. Assn., No. 22-448, 2023 WL 2227658 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2023), could signal a major retreat from Humphrey’s Executor. 14. U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight of Federal Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws, September 20, 2022, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/oversight-of-federal-enforcement-of- the-antitrust-laws (accessed March 9, 2023). 15. Milton Friedman, “A Friedman Doctrine.” 16. Joan Luby and Sarah Kurtz, “Increasing Suicide Rates in Early Adolescent Girls in the United States and the Equalization of Sex Disparity in Suicide: The Need to Investigate the Role of Social Media,” JAMA Network Open, Vol. 2, No. 5 (2019) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2733419 (last visited March 21, 2023); Brett Burstein, “Suicidal Attempts and Ideation Among Children and Adolescents in US Emergency Departments, 2007–2015.” JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 173, No. 6 (2019), pp. 598–600, https://jamanetwork. com/journals/jamapediatrics/articlepdf/2730063/jamapediatrics_burstein_2019_ld_190006.pdf (last visited March 21, 2023); Katherine M. Keyes, Dahsan Gary, et al., “Recent Increases in Depressive Symptoms Among U.S. Adolescents: Trends from 1991 to 2018,” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 54, No. 8 (2019), pp. 987–99, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-019-01697-8 (last visited March 21, 2023); Ramin Mojtabai, Mark Olfson, and Beth Han, “National Trends in the Prevalence and Treatment of Depression in Adolescents and Young Adults,” Pediatrics, Vol. 138, No. 6 (2014), https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/138/6/ e20161878/52639/National-Trends-in-the-Prevalence-and-Treatment-of (last visited March 21, 2023); Gregory Plemmons, Matthew Hall, et. al., Hospitalization for Suicide Ideation or Attempt: 2008–2015,” Pediatrics, Vol. 141, No. 6 (2018), https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/141/6/e20172426/37690/Hospitalization-for-Suicide- Ideation-or-Attempt (last visited March 21, 2023); Henry A. Spiller, John P. Ackerman, et al., “Sex- and Age-Specific Increases in Suicide Attempts by Self-poisoning in the United States Among Youth and Young Adults from 2000 to 2018,” Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 210, (2019), pp. 201–208, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S002234761930277X?casa_token=jms1NxTEV10AAAAA:Ouz_vL9ElIZ58p21w_5SuwOs0OJTNJZtCakf5O3I_ NJCcXWoBm0zDvDTvm-YB0Ma5pZhiKXN (last visited March 21, 2023); Jean M. Twenge, A. Bell Cooper, Thomas E. Joiner, et al., “Age, Period, and Cohort Trends in Mood Disorder Indicators and Suicide-related Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Dataset, 2005–2017,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 128 (2019), pp. 185–199, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fabn0000410 (last visited March 21, 2023).
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on pharmacy benefit managers and prescription drug pricing transparency, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes abortion data reporting, gender identity data collection, FDA regulation of generic drugs and laboratory-developed tests, and drug shortages. There is minimal thematic overlap, primarily limited to general healthcare policy concerns."
— 456 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise abortion providers and whether better prenatal physical, mental, and social care improves infant outcomes and decreases abortion rates, especially among those who are most vulnerable. The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 20239 would amend title XIX of the Social Security Act and Public Health Service Act to improve the CDC’s abortion reporting mechanisms by requiring states, as a condition of federal Medicaid payments for family planning services, to report streamlined variables in a timely manner. The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) The FDA’s mission includes ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Federal Laws That Shield Big Pharma from Competition. Because generics generally cost far less than brand-name drugs, consumers begin to save money as soon as a generic product comes on the market. The vast majority are very afford- able with 93 percent of generic products costing $20 or less. Savings would be even higher under proposals that prevent brand-name man- ufacturers from slowing down or impeding the entrance of generic products into the marketplace. Specifically, the FDA should prohibit pharmaceutical companies from purposely sitting on their legally available right to be the first to sell generic versions of their drugs. Additionally, Congress should create legal remedies for generic companies to obtain samples of brand-name products for their generic development efforts and should prohibit meritless “citizen petitions” submitted by manufacturers to delay approval of a generic competitor.10 Approval Process for Laboratory-Developed or Modified Medical Tests. Learning from the failed early COVID-19 testing experience, Congress and the FDA should focus on reforming laws and regulations governing medical tests, especially with respect to laboratory-developed tests. Commercial tests are developed with the intention of being widely marketed, distributed, and used, while laboratory-developed tests are created with the intention of being used solely within one laboratory. A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a “new” laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlab- oratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories with- out the current regulatory burdens.11 — 457 — Department of Health and Human Services The “laboratory-developed tests” category currently encompasses a range of possible tests, many of which would be characterized more appropriately as “lab- oratory-modified tests” because they are not truly novel tests but rather modified versions of existing tests. To avoid stifling innovation and access to medical care, the applicable statutes and regulations should be revised to facilitate greater access to such modified tests.12 Finally, the FDA has long held that it has regulatory authority over such tests, while others have argued that they should be considered clinical services regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The FDA currently has regulatory authority over in vitro diagnostics, and under the Clinical Lab- oratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA),13 the CMS ensures that labs meet analytical validity standards for test methods. Congress, the FDA, and the CMS need to clarify and disentangle overlapping authorities over tests to eliminate regulatory confusion.14 Drug Shortages. The very thin profit margins and the regulatory burdens associated with generic drug manufacturing discourage inventory and capacity investments by manufacturers and contribute to drug shortages. HHS and the FDA should encourage more dependable generic drug manufacturing. The FDA should expand its current pass/fail approach to drug facility inspec- tions into a graded system that recognizes manufacturers that exceed minimum standards by investing in improving production reliability. The FDA should also add facility codes to drug packaging and construct a searchable database that cross-references product codes and facility codes. That would enable wholesalers and pharmacy benefit managers to identify and preference drugs manufactured at more reliable facilities, thus encouraging generic drug manufacturers to compete on reliability as well as on price. For its part, HHS should exempt multi-source generic drugs from requirements to pay rebates to Medicaid and other federally funded health programs, as those provisions penalize new investments in expanding manufacturing capacity when supply is unable to meet demand.15 Additionally, FDA and NIH should promote efficacy trials of new applications for generic drugs, which might include NIH fund- ing such trials or conducting its own. Abortion Pills. Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn chil- dren in a post-Roe world. The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical. The abortion pill regimen is typically a two-part process. The first pill, mifepris- tone, causes the death of the unborn child by cutting off the hormone progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy. The second pill, misoprostol, causes con- tractions to induce a delivery of the dead child and uterine contents, usually into a toilet at home. The abortion-pill regimen is currently approved for up to 70 days
AI Analysis:
"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt emphasize increasing transparency and reducing costs for consumers, but the bill targets pharmacy benefit managers and drug pricing while the Project 2025 policy focuses on hospital price transparency, health plan flexibility, and laboratory scope, resulting only in tangential thematic overlap."
— 470 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise from the subsidized market, giving the non-subsidized market regulatory relief from the costly ACA regulatory mandates.39 l Strengthen hospital price transparency. In 2020, CMS completed its rule to require hospitals to post the prices of common hospital procedures.40 Future updates of these rules should focus on including quality measures. Combined with the shared savings models and other consumer tools, these efforts could deliver considerable savings for consumers.41 Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCHO). CMS also plays an outsized role in overseeing the Obamacare exchanges, includ- ing managing Healthcare.gov, through the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO). While Obamacare limits plan options, CCIIO has been overly prescriptive in dictating what benefits and types of health plans may participate in the exchanges, thereby actually stifling market innovation and driv- ing up costs. Congress should build on the Trump Administration’s efforts to expand choices for small businesses and workers, both in and out of the exchanges, by codifying an expansion of association health plans, short-term health plans, and health reim- bursement arrangements (including individual coverage HRAs). CCIIO should also work with the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to give consumers more flexibility with their health care dollars through expanded access to health savings accounts. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS l Expand the scope of practice of low-complexity and moderate- complexity clinical laboratories. During the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing laboratories greater regulatory flexibility regarding CLIA requirements increased access to testing. However, the need for regulatory flexibility is not limited to emergency situations. Ongoing innovations in medical care will continue to drive demand for clinical testing and new tests. One way that increasing demand for other medical services has been accommodated is by revising restrictions on scope of practice to enable providers to practice at the so-called top of their license. CMS should similarly revise CLIA rules regarding scope of practice for clinical laboratories and testing personnel.42 l Create CLIA-certification-equivalent pathways for non-clinical laboratories and researchers. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed that the U.S. needs to leverage the expertise of non-clinical laboratories and researchers in order to bolster clinical testing capacity. To accomplish this,
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.