PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H8836)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 12, 2019
Life-Sustaining Prescription Drug Price Relief Act of 2019
This bill establishes a series of oversight and disclosure requirements relating to the prices of life-sustaining prescription drugs. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review at least annually all life-sustaining drugs for excessive pricing; HHS must also review prices upon petition. HHS must create a public database with its determinations for each drug and report its overall findings and related activities.
Under the bill, a price is considered excessive if the domestic average manufacturing price exceeds 110% of the average price for the drug in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan. If a price does not meet this criteria, or if pricing information is unavailable in at least three of the aforementioned countries, the price is still considered excessive if it is higher than reasonable in light of specified factors, including cost, revenue, and the size of the affected patient population.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also requires drug manufacturers, subject to civil penalties, to (1) report specified financial information for life-sustaining drugs, including research and advertising expenditures; and (2) negotiate the prices of excessively priced life-sustaining drugs under the Medicare prescription drug benefit with HHS.
People & committees
Rep. Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL-3] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H8836)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5039 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5039 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5039 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5039 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.