Affirming support for most-favored-Nation drug pricing for United States patients.
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
ID: D000624
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
December 4, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and reveal the underlying disease.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of HRES 928 is to pretend that Congress cares about the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs in the United States. The resolution's objectives are to:
1. Affirm support for most-favored-nation (MFN) drug pricing, which means the US would pay no more than other developed countries for the same prescription drugs. 2. Recognize and affirm the commitment to reducing prescription drug costs for all US citizens.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The resolution is a non-binding statement of intent, meaning it has about as much teeth as a toothless patient with gum disease. The key provisions are:
1. Supporting policies that align US drug pricing with other developed nations. 2. Expanding Medicare drug price negotiation and promoting price competition in the market.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
1. Pharmaceutical companies, who will do everything in their power to maintain their profit margins. 2. Patients, who might actually benefit from lower prescription drug prices (but let's not get too optimistic). 3. Medicare and Medicaid programs, which could see changes in how they negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this resolution will be negligible, as it's just a symbolic gesture to appease the masses. However, if we were to take this seriously (ha!), the implications could be:
1. Pharmaceutical companies might be forced to reduce their prices, which would affect their bottom line and potentially lead to... *gasp* ...lower profits. 2. Patients might see lower prescription drug costs, but don't hold your breath; the pharmaceutical lobby will do everything in its power to prevent this.
Now, let's get to the real diagnosis:
**The Financial Disease:** This resolution is sponsored by Rep. Dingell (D-MI) and cosponsored by Rep. Crane (R-IL). A quick look at their campaign finance records reveals that they've received significant donations from pharmaceutical PACs, including Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck. Ah, the classic symptoms of "Pharmaceutical Lobbyitis"!
**The Real Motivation:** This resolution is a cleverly crafted PR stunt to make Congress appear concerned about prescription drug prices while doing nothing substantial to address the issue. The real motivation? To maintain the status quo and keep those pharmaceutical donations flowing.
In conclusion, HRES 928 is a meaningless exercise in legislative posturing, designed to placate the public while protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies. It's a classic case of "Legislative Lip Service-itis," where politicians pretend to care about an issue while doing nothing to actually address it.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in — 466 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share. Until the IRA is repealed, an Administration that is required to implement it must do so in a way that is prudent with its authority, minimizing the harmful effects of the law’s policies and avoiding even worse unintended consequences.30 Medicaid. Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state. The program is failing some of the most vulnerable patients; is a prime target for waste, fraud, and abuse; and is consuming more of state and federal budgets. The dramatic increase in Medicaid expenditures is due in large part to the ACA (Obamacare), which mandates that states must expand their Medicaid eligibility standards to include all individuals at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and the public health emergency, which has prohibited states from performing basic eligibility reviews. The overlap of available benefits among the various health agencies has led to a complex, confusing system that is nearly impossible to navigate—even for recipients. Recipients are often faced with a “welfare cliff” of benefit losses as they earn above a certain amount, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of empowering individuals to achieve economic independence. Benefits increasingly involve nonmedical services such as air conditioning and housing, many of which are already handled by departments other than HHS. Improper payments within Medicaid are higher than those of any other federal program. These payments are evidence of the inappropriateness of Medicaid’s expansion, which, stemming largely from public health emergency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and the Affordable Care Act, has crowded out the primary targets of these programs: those who are most in need. True health care reform cannot be accomplished in a bureaucratic silo or only through Medicaid and health safety net programs. Reform of the tax code is also essential to genuine, effective reform of our health care system. All components of the health care system should be part of the reform efforts, and it is imperative that the system be modified to assist states with their current programs. Therefore, the next Administration should: l Reform financing. Allow states to have a more flexible, accountable, predictable, transparent, and efficient financing mechanism to deliver medical services. This system should include a more balanced or blended match rate, block grants, aggregate caps, or per capita caps. Any financial system should be designed to encourage and incentivize innovation and the efficient delivery of health care services. Federal and state financial participation in the Medicaid program should be rational, predictable, and reasonable. It should also incentivize states to save money and improve the quality of health care.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.