I am a grateful patient.
Grateful that my life could be saved by medical innovation. Grateful for the hard work of medical researchers and physicians who develop cures and treatments for those of us with chronic illness. Grateful for policymakers who strive to create an environment where new medications and treatments can be developed in a safe and timely manner.
And eternally grateful for access to the treatments that allowed me to not only live but to continue my career as a placekicker for the San Diego Changers when I was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis in my second season, and then again when I contracted hepatitis C from a blood transfusion.
Because of innovative treatments, I have been able to enjoy my family and contribute to my community in San Diego and beyond. Others deserve to have a similar experience, but legislation now pending in Congress threatens to put that experience out of reach for countless patients in San Diego and around the country.
The legislation in question is called House Resolution 3, or the Lower Drug Costs Now Act. Supporters of this proposal claim it will lower prescription drug costs so that treatments are accessible to more patients. That’s a laudable goal of course, but in reality, it’s not one that H.R. 3 will achieve.
Members of Congress should join San Diego Rep. Scott Peters in rejecting H.R. 3 as written and go back to the drawing board to find patient-centered solutions that will truly address affordability concerns without risking access.
There’s no question that prescription drugs can be expensive, and in some cases, prohibitively so. Generally, this fact is related to the extremely high cost of bringing innovative new treatments to the people who need them. Developing just one new medication can cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. And the drug development process is risky, with just around 12% of medications in the pipeline actually making it to market.
Still, bringing down prescription drug costs is a critical component of meaningful health care reform that must be pursued and ultimately achieved. Sadly, H.R. 3 is not the solution and will instead end up swapping one negative consequence for another. In some cases, that consequence will mean the difference between life and death.
H.R. 3 proposes that the U.S. tie the price of prescription drugs in this country to the cost of medications in six other countries. On its face it sounds like a good deal — why shouldn’t Americans pay less like other countries do? The answer lies in the guarantee of full access to prescription medications. The H.R. 3-referenced countries don’t have it.
Patients in the countries H.R. 3 seeks to emulate simply don’t have access to prescription medications like we do in the U.S. While nearly 90% of the new medicines launched from 2011 to 2018 are available to American patients, only 36% are available to those in Australia, 50% in France, and 59% in the United Kingdom. And on average, cancer patients in those countries wait 18 months to access cancer medications after they have become available to U.S. patients.
Under H.R. 3, the hope patients have that an effective treatment or cure is just around the corner will be dashed. Speaking from experience, I would not be here today had a policy like H.R. 3 been implemented when I was first diagnosed.
Yes, I am a grateful patient, and I want to remain so while helping ensure others become grateful patients as well. The outcome of H.R. 3 will be contrary to those goals and to ongoing efforts to make medication more accessible for all.
Let’s all urge Congress to pay heed to H.R. 3’s negative consequences and work together toward health care reform that increases access while continuing to foster hope and gratitude.
Rolf Benirschke had an illustrious 10-year career with the San Diego Chargers before founding the Grateful Patient Project to provide a platform for patients to share their stories of gratitude for the health care providers, medicines, procedures and institutions that supported them through illness and changed their lives.
