I think Secretary Azar is onto something when he says we ought to disclose what the cost to the patient would be.

We cannot ignore that. We should not randomly categorize as bad actors those who have done what this committee has, frankly, encouraged them to do, investing in cutting-edge therapies like gene editing and regenerative medicine, because…

We need to ensure that, as we work to shine a light on how drugs come to market and are priced, that we realize that the market must also be sustainable to produce the next generation of cures and treatments.

I fear that this policy could lead to a sort of public shaming of companies that are trying to benefit patients.

Unfortunately, solving this problem is not as straightforward as we all would hope.

We must consider the potential impact that this requirement could have on the industry.

We must strike this delicate balance with the policies that we pass through this committee to ensure that they do not dampen the success or deter future investment in biomedical research and innovation.

It is especially important that as we evaluate this legislation we consider the unintended consequences for both the patient and the market.

In that light, I believe any policies pursued by this committee must put the patient front and center.

It would be wrong for a formulary or an insurance company, anyone else, to change your patient's medication.

As a physician, I can say that I have seen the benefits of samples for patients firsthand.

I believe in private industry. I believe that, when the Government gets in things, the entry to the industry only gets more difficult.