BIO Statement in Opposition to Senate Bill 376

Biotechnology Innovation Organization issued a statement in opposition to senate bill 376. The statement addressed to Richard L. Saslaw, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, explained the shortfalls of the proposed legislation and its negative impact on the innovation in bioscience. Read the entire statement below.


RE: BIO Statement in Opposition to Senate Bill 376 

Dear Chairman Saslaw and Committee Members: 

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) respectfully opposes SB 376, which would  create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board tasked with reviewing prescription drug costs and setting upper payment limits for specified prescription drugs. BIO is the world’s largest  trade association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state  biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than  30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative  healthcare, agricultural, industrial, and environmental biotechnology products. Government  price controls like those proposed by this bill are an especially drastic action with unpredictable consequences. While the intent of this bill is to lower drug prices, we fear SB 376 will fail to  bring down costs for consumers or institutions and instead disincentivize development of new  therapeutic breakthroughs. 

This bill will not lower prescription drug costs for patients because it does not address out-of pocket costs. Patients pay a given price when they visit a pharmacy based on what their  health insurer determines—it is for this reason why two patients will pay a different price for  the same prescription drug. Out-of-pocket costs have been rising for patients as a result of  decisions made by health insurers. SB 376 does not address the price patients pay out-of pocket and will therefore not directly impact patient affordability for prescription medications. 

This bill also provides no clear path for lowering prescription drug costs for public or private  payers or the healthcare system overall. While it tasks the board with establishing a process  for setting upper payment limits for certain medications, the bill utilizes arbitrary measures  for the selection of such medications and prescribes no process for setting this “limit.” The  price control scheme in SB 376 is designed around the premise that prescription drug costs  have ballooned out of control or are increasing at an unsustainable rate. Yet prescription  drugs, including inpatient medicines, have and continue to make up about 14% of national  health expenditures—both in the past and projected for the next decade.1 And medicine  spending on a per-patient-per-year basis, adjusted for inflation, grew by less than 1% 

between 2009 and 2018.2In fact, for 2021 brand-name drugs’ net prices dropped for the  fourth consecutive year.3 

Unfortunately, artificial price controls only serve to disincentivize biopharmaceutical  companies from developing new, more effective therapies. Economists have estimated that  government price controls can have a significant, damaging effect on the development  pipeline. For example, one study found that an artificial 50% decrease in prices could reduce  the number of drugs in the development pipeline by as much as 24%,4 while another study  found investment in new Phase I research would fall by nearly 60%,5 decreasing the hopes  of patients who are seeking new cures and treatments. 

Price controls will dampen investment and would not allow companies to adequately establish  prices that will provide a return on investment. The average biopharmaceutical costs $2.6  billion to bring from research and development to market.6 Small and mid-sized innovative,  therapeutic biotechnology companies who make up most of BIO’s membership are responsible  for more than 72% of all “late-stage” pipeline activity.7 They sacrifice millions of dollars,  often for decades before ever turning a profit, if at all. In fact, 92% of publicly traded  therapeutic biotechnology companies, and 97% of private firms, operate with no profit.8 The  overall probability that a drug or compound that enters clinical testing will be approved is  estimated to be less than 12%.9 Only five out of 5,000 compounds become viable marketed  products. Pricing must also account for the 4,995 failures before the company discovers that  successful drug compound. 

Proposals such as SB 376 target the most innovative medicines, disproportionately impacting  patients with diseases where there is high unmet need and where low-cost treatment options  are not available (e.g. rare diseases), running counter to the aims of personalized medicine,  and availability of new treatments. Further troubling, the arbitrary nature of upper payment  limits ignores the value that an innovative therapy can have to an individual patient— 

especially one who may have no other recourse—or the societal impact innovative  technologies can have, including increased productivity and decreased overall healthcare  costs (e.g., due to fewer hospitalizations, surgical interventions, and physicians’ office visits). 

For these reasons, we oppose SB 376 and respectfully request an unfavorable committee  report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss this further. 


Ben Chandhok 

State Government Affairs Director, Eastern Region 

Biotechnology Innovation Organization

1 Roehrig, Charles. Projections of the Prescription Drug Share of National Health Expenditures Including Non-Retail.  June 2019. 

2IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. Medicine Use and Spending in the U.S.: A Review of 2018 and Outlook  to 2023. May 2019. 


4 Maloney, Michael T. and Civan, Abdulkadir. The Effect of Price on Pharmaceutical R&D (June 1, 2007). Available at  SSRN: or  

5 Vernon, John A., and Thomas A. Abbott, “The Cost of US Pharmaceutical Price Reductions: A financial simulation  model of R&D Decisions,” NBER Working Paper. NBER, February 2005.  Accessed: April 18, 2019. 

6 DiMasi, JA, et al., Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health  Economics. February 12, 2016. 

7“The Changing Landscape of Research and Development: Innovation, Drivers of Change, and Evolution of Clinical  Trial Productivity,” IQVIA Report, April 2019.  


9 Biopharmaceutical Research and Development, The Process Behind New Medicines. PhRMA, 2015. http://phrma

Recent News


Mason leads planning study to position Northern Virginia as a premier location for the life science industry

During the past several years, industry demand for a skilled life science workforce has been surging. In Virginia, while there are currently shortages in almost all health-related professions, little is known about whether there is an adequate supply of life science workers to meet the needs of employers. Now George Mason University is working toward


California invests $50M to partner with Civica Rx on insulin manufacturing

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced a new contract with nonprofit drugmaker Civica Rx, a move that brings the state one step closer to creating its own line of insulin to bring down the cost of the drug. Once the medicines are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Newsom said at a press conference


RAMP Welcomes 5 Startups into Spring 2023 Cohort

From designing battery electric spotter tractors to developing individualized neuro-oncology treatments for aggressive gliomas, the five companies accepted into RAMP’s Spring 2023 Cohort span the gamut of technology, health science and life science innovation. “We are thrilled to welcome these inspiring entrepreneurs and help them accelerate their vision,” said RAMP director Lisa Garcia. “Not only