Price caps a bitter pill

Supporters of a bill aimed at controlling prescription drug costs in Massachusetts say it’s about “transparency.” That may be true, but only insofar as the transparency can then be used to justify the government price controls the bill is really after.

A coalition of the penny-wise and pound-foolish — lawmakers, health plans and health care advocates — is backing the bill, which would require pharmaceutical companies to disclose reams of data about their spending on research, development and marketing of prescription drugs.

The bill would then empower the state’s Health Policy Commission, a rather toothless advisory body created as part of a 2010 law aimed at controlling health care costs, to cap the prices of some of the most expensive drugs.

Now, supporters say the bill would save consumers and taxpayers huge sums and rein in health care spending overall.

But it’s always a red flag when Massachusetts would be the first of any state to venture down a particular regulatory road. And let’s face it, the inevitable result of imposing government price controls would be to discourage drug development.

According to the latest research from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development the cost of bringing a new prescription drug to market in the United States is an astonishing $2.6 billion.

Do we really want a panel of bureaucrats and ideologues deciding how much is too much for a drug company to charge to recoup those costs — invested usually over a period of decades?

And is it really “unconscionable profiteering” when a forprofit company that has invested billions in developing groundbreaking medications to treat, say, cystic fibrosis or hepatitis C charges high prices that reflect its high costs?

Yes, those new drugs are expensive. Yes, they treat only a small number of patients. But if you or a loved one are among them you’re damn glad they’re available. And surely you’d prefer if this state didn’t take steps that might discourage that.