Government mandating of prices
Betraying its distrust of consumer litigation, CMS explained that the risk of meritless Lanham Act litigation was “acceptably low,” because such litigation “normally involve[s] sophisticated parties doing business in the same sector” as the defendant company.
The Lanham Act confers a cause of action only upon competitors, not consumers.
The proposed regulation specified that the price disclosure had to be conveyed “in a legible textual statement at the end of the advertisement.” Id.
The Secretary would maintain a publicly-available list of drugs and biologics advertised in violation of the price disclosure requirement, but otherwise planned to rely on private actions brought pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.
The problem here is that someone in Sacramento will see this and try to do the same—or maybe a County, like Santa Clara or Marin will do this.
“Vancouver, Canada, where real estate prices have been escalating sharply, has sought to temper housing demand by imposing a 15 percent on sales to foreign homes buyers.
Because “it would be counterproductive if th[e] [proposal] were to increase transactional costs in defending meritless litigation,” the proposed rule would preempt any state court claims based on any pricing statement required by the rule. The proposed regulation did specify that in disclosing the list price the advertisement was also to advise viewers that “[i]f you have health insurance that covers drugs, your cost may be different.” 42 C. In particular, due to the variation in the prices paid by distributors, pharmacies, others in the supply chain, as well as patients, pharmaceutical companies would encounter difficulties in reporting any price other than the drug’s list price. In the second and installment of this series, I will discuss the potentially anomalous consequences of the proposed rule, CMS’s questionable assertion of authority to adopt such a rule, the First Amendment constraints on the proposal, and an alternative proposal that avoids the statutory authority and First Amendment questions. The “Regulation to Require Drug Pricing Transparency,” 42 C. The rationales for the proposed rule are: (1) to apply downward pressure to drug and biologic prices, and (2) enable that Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to make informed decisions regarding drugs and biologics, taking into account their out-of-pocket costs. §§403.1200 to 403.1203 (proposed), applies only to drugs and biologics covered by Medicare or Medicaid.
The immediate response was stunning: Within a few months the price of a single-family property in the greater Vancouver area dropped 20 percent.” TAXES AND HOUSING PRICES By Richard Colman, California Political News and Views, 6/12/18 Anecdotal evidence coming from Silicon Valley goes like this: A family earning $300,000 a year may not be able to obtain a loan for a house.