As the public uproar over generic drug and off-patent, off-exclusivity branded drug price gouging heightens, state experts and patient activists in Maryland are lobbying for politicians to implement a law that would prohibit price gouging of important off-patent non-brand drugs. In a response to the uproar on price gouging essential off-patent or generic drugs, the legislation Attorney General Brian Frosh proposed to tackle the problem of generic drug prices rapidly increases. If passed, Maryland would be the primary state in the nation to give its Attorney General the authority to take pharmaceutical corporations to court for price gouging the idea was justly simple. It would permit the attorney general to mandate an explanation from a manufacturer if an "essential off-patent or generic drug “an issue of “unconscionable increase" in price, implicating it is not defensible by an increase in the cost of production or other rational reasons and leaves consumers hooked on that medication with no sustainable choice other than to purchase it at an inflated rate.
In order to help the Attorney General learn of such circumstances, the Maryland health department would be mandated to report to him if the price of certain drugs increased by more than 50 percent in a year. If needed, the attorney general could take a manufacturer to Federal Court to force cooperation and, if necessary, pursue remedies, including reimbursements to consumers and penalties for the business. After much debate with the pharmaceutical business, it passed the House of Delegates 137-4.
On the way to the Senate Finance Committee. Amongst the passage in the House and deliberation of the bill in the Senate, the pharmaceutical business decided that the 50 percent reporting onset in the bill was really the minimum onset for an "unconscionable increase." The special interest group for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (or PhRMA) testified in the Finance Committee that "We believe there is a link between the threshold and the unconscionable standard. ... There is no doubt in our mind that they are linked." The special interest group for the generic drug companies said they were enthusiastic to agree with House bill for the reason that such a link existed, testifying that "having that bottom onset in there actually made them feel safe that this wasn't going to harmfully impact the economic marketplace." The senators on finance, whose work on the problem evidently included actually reading the bill, nonetheless the original unconscionability standard was in the House bill. It was reinforced it in the House bill. Supposedly it was still there.
The pharmaceutical representatives claimed that there was legislative intent on the part of the House to connect the 50 percent reporting with the unconscionability standard, but that was simply not what the bill stated. As well it shouldn't. A 50 percent increase in a year is basically too strict a standard for what institutes price gouging. The public was in an uproar over the substantial increase in costs for generic medication but their charge not once increased by as much as 50 percent in a year, instead escalated by 20 percent to 30 percent each year over a period of some years. Consequently, Mr. Frosh's original proposal called for reporting as soon as a price increased by 50 percent over a two-year period.
With worries, a judge somewhere down the line could conflate the two problems as well and see an implicit connection where none was proposed. Consequently, Mr. Frosh is proposing to eliminate the health department reporting mechanism completely to remove any potential source of misunderstanding. Getting that report would surely have been supportive, nonetheless, there are plenty other sources for the statistics. It's a practical resolution that saves the proposed outcome of the legislation intact and should cause no uncertainties for anyone who embraced the original bill, and the Finance Committee has previously moved to accept it. The standard for what establishes an "unconscionable increase" remains specifically the same as in the bill the House passed overwhelmingly on a bilateral basis. On the contrary, this version removes some administrative problems for the state government that was debatably pointless anyway. The pharmaceutical business is in disagreement that the bill, as now modified, lacks a clear, statistical standard for what amounts as price gouging and removes a method from the original bill that provided companies to work with the attorney general before problems landed in court. In the original description, the Attorney General could have could have required manufacturers of drugs that generated the 50 percent reporting requirement to produce documents justifying the increase. It was logically to have some conclusive standard in connection with giving the attorney general the authority to require a company in so doing, but putting the question in the hands of a judge may essentially be better for the business and would inhibit the Attorney General from abusing his or her authority.
The bill was the urge of the Senate to adopt Mr. Frosh's proposed amendments and the House to agreed and sent the bill to Gov. Larry Hogan's bureau.
Check Work - Ms. Sue today at 12:05pm
What are we supposed to check?
Check Work - Writing issues:
Grammar
Punctuation
Enhancement
You should use Grammarly.
Grammarly or a paid proofreader is what you need?
Word choices: Amongst? This is not Britian. "unconscionable" is a bit over used, in my opinion.
Flow and Purpose: The last paragraph states the legislation is passed, but the first paragraph indicates there is a legslative /special interest fight ahead. What is the purpose of the article? It is usually helpful to state that in the opening paragraph, and to then wrap it up in the final. The final wrap <The bill was the urge of the Senate to adopt Mr. Frosh's proposed amendments and the House to agreed and sent the bill to Gov. Larry Hogan's bureau. >> is confusing. What does this mean? Is it important?
It seems to me the important issue was some agreement and precision on what "price gouging" is, and that resolution is the important point of this article which is left out, but as I stated before, I am a bit wondering what is the point here.
You tend to long sentences. Many are four or more lines long. Effective communications tend to short sentences, as they are remembered. In my opinion, you could break up some of your sentences for readability, and it might focus you on making your purpose and points stronger.
Your comments on "hire some ..". We are all volunteers here, mostly retired academics or professional folks who have a desire to help those learning. We are not paid, and do not sit on computers to wait to be used, even in ALL CAPS.
Good luck, you have the makings of a good writer.
It seems that you would like me to check the grammar, punctuation, and enhancement of the text you provided. Here is an edited version with corrected grammar and punctuation, as well as some enhanced clarity:
As the public uproar over the price gouging of generic drugs and off-patent, off-exclusivity branded drugs intensifies, state experts and patient activists in Maryland are lobbying for the implementation of a law that would prohibit price gouging of important off-patent non-brand drugs.
In response to the outcry against price gouging of essential off-patent or generic drugs, Maryland's Attorney General, Brian Frosh, has proposed legislation to address the rapidly increasing prices of generic drugs. If passed, Maryland would become the first state in the nation to grant its Attorney General the authority to take pharmaceutical corporations to court for price gouging.
The proposed law is quite simple: it would allow the attorney general to require an explanation from a manufacturer if an "essential off-patent or generic drug" has seen an "unconscionable increase" in price that cannot be justified by an increase in production cost or other reasonable factors, thereby leaving consumers with no choice but to purchase the medication at an inflated price.
To help the Attorney General identify such cases, the Maryland health department would be required to report any drugs whose prices increase by more than 50 percent within a year. If necessary, the attorney general could take a manufacturer to federal court to compel their cooperation and, if needed, pursue remedies such as reimbursing consumers and imposing penalties on the business.
After much debate with the pharmaceutical industry, the bill passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 137-4 and is now on its way to the Senate Finance Committee. During this process, the pharmaceutical industry raised concerns about the 50 percent reporting requirement, arguing that it was too low of a threshold for identifying "unconscionable increases." They claimed that there was a clear connection between the threshold and the unconscionability standard.
Industry representatives from generic drug companies, on the other hand, expressed support for the House bill precisely because of this connection. They believed that having a minimum threshold provided reassurance that the bill would not harm the economic marketplace.
The senators on the Finance Committee, who actually read the bill, discovered that the original unconscionability standard was indeed in the House bill and retained it. However, the pharmaceutical representatives argued that there was legislative intent to connect the 50 percent reporting with the unconscionability standard, even though the bill did not explicitly state it. This argument was not valid, as the 50 percent increase in a year is considered too strict a standard to define price gouging.
The public outrage was mainly focused on the significant increase in costs for generic medication, but the price increase was not as high as 50 percent within a year. Instead, prices had risen by 20 to 30 percent annually over a period of several years. Consequently, Attorney General Frosh initially proposed a reporting requirement when a price increased by 50 percent over a two-year period.
To avoid potential confusion and misinterpretation in the future, Frosh is now proposing to remove the health department reporting mechanism entirely. While this report would have been helpful, there are other sources of statistics available. This practical solution maintains the original purpose of the legislation and should not create any uncertainties for those who supported the original bill. The Finance Committee has already moved to accept this version.
The standard for what constitutes an "unconscionable increase" remains the same as in the bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the House. However, this revised version eliminates some administrative issues for the state government that were arguably unnecessary anyway.
The pharmaceutical industry disagrees with the bill in its current modified form, arguing that it lacks a clear, statistical standard for defining price gouging and removes a method from the original bill that allowed companies to work with the attorney general before going to court. In the original proposal, the attorney general could have required manufacturers to produce documents justifying the price increase to satisfy the 50 percent reporting requirement. While it would have made sense to have a conclusive standard in the legislation, leaving the decision to a judge may actually be better for the industry and prevent the abuse of authority by the Attorney General.
The bill now awaits the Senate's adoption of Mr. Frosh's proposed amendments, and the House has agreed and sent the bill to Gov. Larry Hogan's office.