根据侵占条款,医疗保险药品价格谈判的合宪性。

IF 1.6 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1017/jme.2024.10
Raj Bhargava, Nathan Brown, Amy Kapczynski, Aaron S Kesselheim, Stephanie Y Lim, Christopher J Morten
{"title":"根据侵占条款,医疗保险药品价格谈判的合宪性。","authors":"Raj Bhargava, Nathan Brown, Amy Kapczynski, Aaron S Kesselheim, Stephanie Y Lim, Christopher J Morten","doi":"10.1017/jme.2024.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In recent months, pharmaceutical manufacturers have brought legal challenges to a provision of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) empowering the federal government to negotiate the prices Medicare pays for certain prescription medications. One key argument made in these filings is that price negotiation is a \"taking\" of property and violates the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Through original case law and health policy analysis, we show that government price negotiation and even price regulation of goods and services, including patented goods, are constitutional under the Takings Clause. Finding that the IRA violates the Takings Clause would radically upend settled constitutional law and jeopardize the US's most important state and federal health care programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Constitutionality of Medicare Drug-Price Negotiation under the Takings Clause.\",\"authors\":\"Raj Bhargava, Nathan Brown, Amy Kapczynski, Aaron S Kesselheim, Stephanie Y Lim, Christopher J Morten\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jme.2024.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In recent months, pharmaceutical manufacturers have brought legal challenges to a provision of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) empowering the federal government to negotiate the prices Medicare pays for certain prescription medications. One key argument made in these filings is that price negotiation is a \\\"taking\\\" of property and violates the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Through original case law and health policy analysis, we show that government price negotiation and even price regulation of goods and services, including patented goods, are constitutional under the Takings Clause. Finding that the IRA violates the Takings Clause would radically upend settled constitutional law and jeopardize the US's most important state and federal health care programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2024.10\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2024.10","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近几个月来,制药商对《2022 年通货膨胀削减法》(IRA)中授权联邦政府就医疗保险(Medicare)为某些处方药支付的价格进行谈判的条款提出了法律挑战。这些诉讼的一个关键论点是,价格谈判是对财产的 "剥夺",违反了美国宪法的 "剥夺条款"。通过原始判例法和医疗政策分析,我们表明政府对商品和服务(包括专利商品)的价格谈判甚至价格监管符合《征收条款》的规定。认定《爱尔兰共和军法案》违反了 "征用条款 "将从根本上颠覆既定的宪法法律,并危及美国最重要的州和联邦医疗保健计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Constitutionality of Medicare Drug-Price Negotiation under the Takings Clause.

In recent months, pharmaceutical manufacturers have brought legal challenges to a provision of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) empowering the federal government to negotiate the prices Medicare pays for certain prescription medications. One key argument made in these filings is that price negotiation is a "taking" of property and violates the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Through original case law and health policy analysis, we show that government price negotiation and even price regulation of goods and services, including patented goods, are constitutional under the Takings Clause. Finding that the IRA violates the Takings Clause would radically upend settled constitutional law and jeopardize the US's most important state and federal health care programs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
期刊最新文献
Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in a Post-Roe Era - ERRATUM. INTRODUCTION: Medical-Legal Partnerships: Equity, Evolution, and Evaluation - CORRIGENDUM. "A Most Equitable Drug": How the Clinical Studies of Convalescent Plasma as a Treatment for SARS-CoV-2 Might Usefully Inform Post-Pandemic Public Sector Approaches to Drug Development. A Federally Qualified Health Center-led Ethics & Equity Framework & Workflow Checklist: An Invited Commentary in Response to a Relational Public Health Framing of FQHCs During COVID-19. A Public Option for Clinical Trials? Lessons from Convalescent Plasma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1