N※N

Representative Lankford Proposes Tying Drug Prices to FY Appropriations Bill

65

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. tying-drug-prices-to-fy-appropriations-bill.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, December 4th 2025 at 17:11 GMT by Politico

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-04 196 x 224 / 11061 Bytes

2025-12-04 224 x 224 / 6862 Bytes

2025-12-04 198 x 224 / 13276 Bytes

2025-12-04 185 x 224 / 6214 Bytes

Congressional Push to Tie Drug Policy to the Fiscal-Year Funding Bill: A Detailed Look at Representative Lankford’s Initiative

In a day of high‑stakes congressional drama that unfolded over the course of the morning, Representative Donnie Lankford (R‑KS‑3) announced a new strategy to weave drug policy language into the House’s fiscal‑year appropriations legislation. The move came amid a broader national debate over soaring prescription‑drug prices, the opioid epidemic, and the federal government’s role in regulating the drug supply chain. Lankford’s proposal, which the Republican caucus has dubbed the “Drug‑Price Transparency and Accountability Bill,” aims to make drug‑pricing reforms a condition for federal funding, effectively linking a cornerstone of American healthcare to a key piece of government spending.

Why Lankford is Making the Move

Lankford, a senior member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, has long been a vocal advocate for tighter controls on drug pricing and greater transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. In a floor statement released through the House Clerk’s office, he argued that “the American people are paying an unsustainable price for life‑saving medication, and that the federal government must hold drug manufacturers accountable.” He cited data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, noting that in 2023 the median price for a chronic‑disease drug increased by 25% relative to inflation—an unprecedented rate of growth.

The Congressman framed his proposal as a “pro‑American” solution that would both curb excessive prices and incentivize innovation. “We can’t let drug prices dictate the health of our veterans, our children, or our frontline workers,” Lankford said. “By attaching drug‑policy language to the appropriations bill, we ensure that those who provide the funding for veterans’ care and other federal programs are also part of the solution.”

The Core Elements of the Proposal

Lankford’s draft has three main pillars:

1. Price‑Transparency Requirement – Manufacturers would be required to disclose the historical price of each drug, the rationale behind price changes, and a detailed comparison with international pricing. This would be linked to a federal database managed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

2. Conditional Funding for Drug‑Related Programs – The bill would stipulate that federal grants for drug research, prescription‑monitoring programs, and community‑based substance‑abuse prevention could be withheld if a manufacturer fails to comply with the transparency requirement for a 12‑month period.

3. Veterans’ Price‑Discount Provision – The proposal would create a special “Veterans Price‑Discount Program” that obligates manufacturers to offer a minimum 15% discount on drugs purchased through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Non‑compliance would result in a reduction of the VHA’s federal budget.

The language is broad enough to allow the House to negotiate with other stakeholders, including pharmaceutical lobbying groups and state regulators, but it carries a strong political signal that the House will be tough on price gouging.

House Floor Debates and Bipartisan Reactions

The day’s floor proceedings were far from a one‑sided affair. While many Republicans rallied behind Lankford’s “big‑picture” approach, some Democrats warned that tying drug policy to appropriations could set a dangerous precedent.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez (D‑NY) took to the floor to challenge the bill’s “unfairly punitive” stance. “We are dealing with a crisis that has taken the lives of 100,000 Americans in the last decade,” she said. “But punishing manufacturers for making a profit may drive innovation away from our country.” She also argued that the federal government should look at a broader set of reforms, such as a “generic‑drugs reform act” that would speed the approval of lower‑cost generics.

Meanwhile, Representative Jim Jordan (R‑OH‑2) expressed skepticism about the bill’s feasibility. “We have a budget of billions of dollars; tying it to drug pricing is a complicated, potentially costly endeavor,” he said. “But I’m open to hearing more from Lankford.”

On the committee side, the House Committee on Appropriations held a closed‑door hearing where Lankford presented data on the impact of high drug costs on the federal budget. The committee chair, Rep. Mike Johnson (R‑LA‑4), noted that the committee had received “substantial evidence” from the Office of Management and Budget that drug costs have risen faster than inflation in the last four years. He stated that the committee would consider Lankford’s recommendations “in light of the larger budgetary picture.”

The Political Landscape and Key Stakeholders

The introduction of this bill occurs at a time when the federal government is grappling with several budgetary pressures: the ongoing war in Ukraine, a potential recession, and a backlog of unfunded obligations. By attaching drug policy to the appropriations bill, Lankford aims to make drug pricing reforms a “must‑have” condition for fiscal policy, forcing both parties to negotiate.

Pharmaceutical lobbyists, represented by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), have issued a statement cautioning that the bill’s transparency requirement could expose companies to “unnecessary legal liability” and “competitive disadvantage.” Meanwhile, advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association of the Deaf have expressed support for the idea that federal funding should be conditioned on drug price transparency.

In the Senate, the corresponding “Drug‑Price Transparency and Accountability Act” has already seen bipartisan support. Senator Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R‑KY) are reportedly in a "private" negotiation to merge the House’s version with the Senate’s, with an eye toward passing a consolidated bill.

What’s Next?

As of the end of the morning, the bill had not yet been introduced formally into the House’s fiscal‑year appropriations package. However, Lankford’s strategy is clear: he intends to file a resolution that will trigger a “deemed” amendment process, a fast‑track procedure that allows for the addition of substantive provisions without the typical filibuster risk. If successful, the amendment would require every member of the House to vote on it in a single roll call, effectively turning the appropriations vote into a de facto drug‑pricing vote.

If the amendment passes, the appropriation bill would be the first time drug pricing has been tied to federal funding at a national level, setting a significant precedent. That precedent could ripple across the legislative landscape, influencing future bills on healthcare, veterans’ benefits, and even the Department of Defense’s medical procurement.

For now, Lankford’s “Drug‑Price Transparency and Accountability Bill” remains a bold, high‑visibility effort to link drug policy with the federal budget. Whether it will ultimately succeed depends on a complex mix of political will, stakeholder negotiation, and the broader economic climate. The House will be watching closely, as the fate of the bill will likely shape the conversation about drug prices for the next decade.