HR-9699-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Judy Chu (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publicly release, within 30 days of enactment, all records, contracts, communications, and agreements between the federal government and drug manufacturers entered into on or after January 20, 2025. Covered agreements include those involving most-favored-nation pricing (tying U.S. drug prices to lower prices paid in other countries), direct-to-consumer drug sales platforms, tariff exemptions, U.S. investment commitments, special treatment in Medicare/Medicaid demonstration projects, Strategic National Stockpile purchasing deals, and FDA priority review vouchers. The bill names 17 specific pharmaceutical companies whose agreements must be disclosed, requires ongoing disclosure of future agreements within 30 days of signing, and directs the CBO and GAO to jointly analyze the economic and budgetary effects of all disclosed agreements within 90 days.
Who benefits
Patients and consumers who would gain visibility into how drug pricing deals affect what they pay out of pocket. Congress and oversight bodies that would receive structured reporting on agreements currently negotiated outside public view. Journalists, researchers, and public health advocates who could analyze the disclosed data. Competing drug manufacturers not party to the deals who may have faced an uneven regulatory or market playing field. Generic drug makers who could assess whether brand-name agreements shift formulary incentives against them. State Medicaid programs that could evaluate how federal deals affect their own drug costs.
Who is hurt
The 17 named pharmaceutical manufacturers whose confidential negotiating terms, pricing strategies, and business commitments would be made public, potentially weakening their future bargaining positions. The executive branch, which would lose the ability to conduct confidential negotiations with drug companies. Future drug manufacturers who may be deterred from entering voluntary pricing agreements if terms will be publicly disclosed. Health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers whose formulary strategies could be exposed or disrupted. Patients who benefit from agreements that manufacturers might withdraw from or decline to enter if confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that agreements between the federal government and major drug manufacturers — covering Medicare, Medicaid, tariff exemptions, and FDA priority review vouchers — are exercises of public power that the public has a right to scrutinize. They contend that without disclosure, there is no way to verify whether these deals actually lower drug costs for patients or instead provide manufacturers with regulatory favors in exchange for superficial price concessions. They point to the bill's specific list of 17 companies and the breadth of deal types covered as evidence that significant federal commitments have already been made in secret, and argue that the CBO/GAO analysis requirement ensures independent, nonpartisan evaluation of whether the deals deliver real savings.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandatory public disclosure of confidential pricing terms would undermine the federal government's ability to negotiate favorable drug prices in the future, since manufacturers will offer less aggressive concessions if their terms are immediately made public and visible to competitors and foreign governments. They contend that some pricing information is legally protected under foreign law or existing contracts, and that forcing disclosure could expose the government to breach-of-contract liability or cause manufacturers to exit voluntary agreements entirely — ultimately harming the patients these deals are meant to help. They further argue that existing oversight mechanisms, including congressional committee access and inspector general review, already provide accountability without the risks of full public disclosure.