Vermont to require drug makers to explain price increases

Both drugs are expensive, though for people of the Messings' modest income, big manufacturers' discounts and state assistance make their costs manageable.

Drug companies often counter that research and development of new medicines is costly, a view that got some support last month in a Boston Globe op-ed by Dr. Jeffrey S. Flier, dean of the Harvard Medical School.

Vermont state Rep. Christopher Pearson, a member of the Vermont Progressive Party from the state's largest city, Burlington, and a key supporter of the legislation, noted prescription drugs often sell for far less in other countries and offered another reason for high prices: the inability of Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate better prices under federal law.

Vermont in 2007 passed a law to restrict prescription "data mining" by companies that track doctors' prescribing habits and sell the information to drug companies, but the U.S. Supreme Court shot it down in 2011.

A California ballot initiative in November would go further by requiring state agencies to get drugs for the same prices as the Veterans Administration, which is not affected by the no-negotiations rule.

"Instead of passing legislation that makes a political point, we believe the Legislature should have focused instead on giving patients and families what they actually need: predictable and accessible information about the out-of-pocket costs they will face and enforceable, common-sense rules ... that remove barriers to receiving care," she said in a statement.