How Big Pharma Reaps Profits While Hurting Everyday Americans

The pharmaceutical industry leverages Washington’s culture of corruption to increase profits while everyday Americans suffer from high drug prices.

With President Donald Trump looking on, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar delivers remarks on reducing drug costs at the White House, Washington, D.C., May 2018. (Getty/Nicholas Kamm/AFP)

It’s no secret that the Trump administration has fostered a culture of corruption in which special interests and big donors advance their interests at the expense of everyday people. Perhaps no policy area exemplifies this corruption more than the issue of drug pricing.

President Trump has long promised to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and lower prescription drug prices, but he has avoided taking serious action to drive down prices while at the same time filling top spots in his administration with industry insiders. This administration’s culture of corruption, which continues a decadeslong practice of political pandering to the pharmaceutical industry, carries a real cost; Americans spent $535 billion1 on prescription drugs in 2018, an increase of 50 percent since 2010. These price increases far surpass inflation, with Big Pharma increasing prices on its most-prescribed medications by anywhere from 40 percent to 71 percent from 2011 to 2015.2

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Moreover, pharmaceutical companies receive substantial U.S. government assistance in the form of publicly funded basic research and tax breaks, yet they continue to charge exorbitant prices for medications. But the issue goes beyond cost. In America, more than 1 million individuals suffer from Type 1 diabetes3, a condition where the body cannot make insulin, which is essential for getting glucose (also known as blood sugar) into cells from the bloodstream. Without insulin, glucose accumulates in the bloodstream4, causing dangerously high blood sugar levels. Among all Americans suffering from diabetes, at least 1 in 45 have said that they engaged in insulin rationing—a tactic of using less insulin than is needed in order to make the doses last longer—as a direct result of the skyrocketing price of the drug. A vial of insulin, which is the only life-sustaining option for Type 1 diabetics, retails at  around $300.6 A 2018 study commissioned by the Congressional Diabetes Caucus found that the price of insulin has doubled since 20127; in the 10 years prior, the price of insulin nearly tripled. Despite the dangers of insulin rationing, which can lead to diabetic ketoacidosis, a fatal condition, many Americans have no other choice. That was the case for Antroinette8, whose daughter was rationing insulin due to the high cost and died at the age of 22 as a result.

Insulin facts

  • Access to insulin for patients with Type 1 diabetes is a matter of life or death.9
  • While insulin has existed since the1920s10, the price since then has skyrocketed, especially in recent years. Prices for insulin increased by 197 percent between 2002 and 2013, from $4.34 per milliliter to $12.92 per milliliter.11
  • There are three insulin manufacturers serving the United States: Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk A/S, and Sanofi SA.
  • Eli Lillyannounced12 in March 2019 that it would begin selling a generic version of its Humalog insulin at half the price. The medication, known as lispro, will cost $137.35 per vial. To compare pricing, a 2018 study13 estimated that the cost of making a year’s worth of insulin for one patient ranges from $78 to $133.
  • Ahead of its hearing on drug pricing in February 2019, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance sent aletter14 to Eli Lilly asking why insulin is priced so astonishingly high. A vial of NovoLog, one type of insulin, costs15 anywhere from $14 to $300 in the United States but only $48 in Singapore, $14 in India, $6 in Austria, and $0 in Italy.

American taxpayers fund basic research

Billions of taxpayer dollars go into the creation and marketing16 of new drugs. The Los Angeles Times reports that, “Since the 1930s, the National Institutes of Health has invested close to $90017 billion in the basic and applied research that formed both the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors.” Despite taxpayers’ crucial investment, U.S. consumers are increasingly paying more for their prescription drugs.

A 2018 study18 on the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) financial contributions to new drug approvals found that the agency “contributed to published research associated with every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010–2016.” More than $100 billion in NIH funding went toward research that contributed directly or indirectly to the 210 drugs approved during that six-year period. The NIH Research Project Grant (R01)19—which supports health-related research—was by far the most common kind of grant used to fund the science that supported the new drugs. In all, NIH gave out nearly 118,00020 R01 grants related to those drugs from 2010 to 2016.

See also

Federal perks for Big Pharma add up

Pharmaceutical companies also benefit from research and development tax credits. The federal R&D tax credit was first introduced in 1981 to encourage private sector investment in pioneering research.21 This tax credit is available to businesses that attempt to develop new, improved, or technologically advanced products or trade processes.22 In 2015, former President Barack Obama signed into law the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act23, which made these tax credits permanent and extended them to small businesses and startup companies.

Pharmaceutical industries also receive a tax deduction for their marketing and advertising expenses. According to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “From 1997 through 2016, medical marketing expanded substantially, and spending increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion,24 with direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs and health services accounting for the most rapid growth, and pharmaceutical marketing to health professionals accounting for most promotional spending.” The report also found that from 1997 through 2016, “the number of advertisements … increased from 79,000 (including 72,000 television commercials) in 1997 to 4.6 million (663,000 television25 commercials) in 2016.”

Big Pharma’s drug pricing maximizes profits

Despite these taxpayer subsidies, prescription drug prices are nonetheless increasing at an alarming rate. In 2019, price increases from drug manufacturers affected more than 3,40026 drugs. For example, Allergan, a major pharmaceutical manufacturer, raised prices on 51 drugs, just more than half its portfolio. Some medications that Allergan manufactures saw a 9.5 percent jump in cost, while others saw a 4.9 percent increase in cost.27 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world, increased its drug prices by more than 9 percent.28 These sharp increases in price occur as companies continue to report millions of dollars in revenue. In 2018, Allergan reported $15.8 million29 in revenue, while Teva Pharmaceuticals reported $18.8 million30 in revenue.

Pharmaceutical companies’ profit margins receive significant bumps when they launch new drugs, specifically specialty drugs, used to treat life-threatening conditions. These drugs often cost more than most Americans can afford. Pharmaceutical companies have stated that the prices are high because the drugs are difficult to manufacture. In 2013, for example, industry giant Gilead Sciences launched Sovaldi, a hepatitis C drug, at $1,000 per pill31, or $84,00032 per treatment, which could last 12 to 24 weeks.33 After an 18-month investigation into the company’s pricing, the Senate Finance Committee concluded that Gilead had pursued a marketing and pricing strategy designed to “maximize revenue with little concern for access or affordability.”34

Drug companies also benefit from patents, which give them monopoly power for their on-patent products. These patents ensure that prices remain high by reducing competition. Drug patents last for 20 years after the filing date. Pharmaceutical companies have also employed tactics such as evergreening and thicketing to prolong a drug’s exclusivity. When evergreening, pharmaceutical companies make certain modifications to a drug such as changing its35 chemical composition slightly or making an external change as minor as adding a stripe to a pill36 in order to preserve their patents. A 2018 study in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences found that 78 percent37 of new drug patents awarded in the past decade went to drugs that already existed. Seventy percent 38 of the nearly 100 bestselling drugs extended their exclusivity protections at least once, and 50 percent extended their patents more than once. The second tactic—thicketing—involves flooding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the courts with excessive patents and applications to make it difficult for competing firms to secure patents. These tactics help preserve pharmaceutical companies’ monopolies and ensure that drug prices remain uncompetitive and thus less affordable for everyday Americans.

While consumers continue to pay the price of this market manipulation, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the pharmaceutical industry found that these unfair practices are significantly enriching manufacturers. As the report stated, “Among the largest 25 companies, annual average profit margin fluctuated between 15 and 20 percent.”39 The GAO contextualizes these profits by comparing the pharmaceutical industry’s profits with those of its counterparts, stating that “the annual average profit margin across non-drug companies among the largest 500 globally fluctuated between 4 and 9 percent.”

In 2018 alone, the CEOs of major pharmaceutical companies Allergan, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer Inc. made a total of $90 million.40 Meanwhile, according to a CBS News report, Americans spent $535 billion41 on prescription drugs in 2018—an increase of 50 percent since 2010.42 As pharmaceutical industry profits increase43, everyday Americans—whose tax dollars play a critical role in funding the research and development of these medications—are not receiving anything close to a fair return on their investment.

A recent Pew Charitable Trusts study found that Americans spent $65.8 billion44 out of pocket in 2016 for retail prescription drugs, up from $59.5 billion in 2012. The high cost of prescription drugs is a significant driver of medical debt45 because Americans are increasingly reliant on medication to manage long-term chronic conditions.46 Additionally, the high cost of prescription drugs has forced many Americans to take drastic measures, including foregoing taking their medications as prescribed or traveling abroad in order to save on medications. A 2019 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 11.4 percent47 of adults aged 18 to 64 did not take their prescription drugs as prescribed in order to reduce how much they spent on their medications. And, as NPR recently reported, “The U.S government estimates that close to 1 million48 Americans in California alone go to Mexico annually for health care, including to buy prescription drugs.” In May 2019, a group of Americans49 living with Type 1 diabetes traveled to Canada to purchase insulin and call on the U.S. government to regulate the cost of lifesaving drugs. The costs associated with traveling abroad make it logistically and financially impractical for most Americans. Further, traveling abroad presents certain health risks given that some countries have lax drug certification standards compared with FDA standards.

Read more

President Trump’s broken promises on drug pricing

In an interview with Time magazine ahead of being chosen as its Person of the Year in 2016, Trump said, “I’m going to bring down drug prices. I don’t like what’s happened with drug prices.”50 He promised to bring Americans’ drug spending down to $0 by negotiating drug prices.51 Trump made grandiose promises on drug pricing but almost three years later has only managed to deliver a handful of half-measures, illustrating his administration’s lack of commitment to lowering drug prices. One of Trump’s proposals from his so-called presidential blueprint52 included eliminating some rebates paid by drug companies53 that hide the true cost of drugs. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the measure would actually increase federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid by $177 billion.54 The Trump administration also announced a regulation that would require TV ads for drugs to include the list price.55 Some experts believe this policy will be ineffective56 at making pharmaceutical companies lower list prices or end price hikes for drugs and will only confuse or mislead consumers rather than help them.57 These half-measures, combined with Trump surrounding himself with high-level Big Pharma officials, clearly communicates that the administration is not on track to lower drug costs for Americans.

Congress has done little to address the problem of high drug prices. Instead, many members continue to enjoy cozy relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. The industry spent more than $62 million in the 2016 congressional elections—the most it has ever spent on political campaigns.58 The massive influx of campaign cash benefited members of both parties, including those that sit on committees with jurisdiction over drug pricing.59 Big Pharma’s investment has paid off as recently as July 2019, when the Senate Finance Committee failed to pass an amendment on the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act of 2019, which would have allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.60 Medicare’s ability to negotiate on drug prices, which is currently prohibited by law, “would provide the leverage needed to lower drug costs.”61

Despite his promise to be tough on Big Pharma, President Trump has proven to be a friend to the industry. Big Pharma officials have filled at least 1662 current or former positions in the Trump administration, and many of Trump’s top health advisers have been industry insiders or close to the pharmaceutical companies. Trump’s first secretary of health and human services, former Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), was a longtime friend of the industry63 in Congress, where he not only pushed Big Pharma’s agenda but also benefited from it financially.64 Price, who drew scrutiny for more than $300,000 in health care stock trades, was eventually forced to resign in 201765 as a result of his illicit use of private jets on the taxpayers’ dime.

In 2017, Trump nominated Joe Grogan66 to a top position at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Grogan spent five years as a lobbyist for Gilead—the pharmaceutical company that is infamous for its sky-high prices on a cure for hepatitis C.67 Since joining the administration, Grogan has led drug-pricing proposals and participated in Trump’s Drug Pricing and Innovation Working Group.”68 However, the working group has proposed pharma-friendly measures such as implementing monopoly rights outside of the United States, speeding up approval from the FDA for new drugs, and eliminating price cuts for hospitals in impoverished areas.

President Trump chose to replace Price with Alex Azar, the former president of Eli Lilly—one of the companies that is working to keep drug prices high while everyday Americans suffer—to oversee his efforts to address drug pricing as secretary of health and human services.

In 2018, pharmaceutical companies spent more than $283 million in lobbying dollars69, with Eli Lilly spending just less than $6.8 million in 2018.70 While Azar, Trump’s chief health adviser, was president of Eli Lilly, the company drastically increased insulin prices. Eli Lilly is currently defending itself against a class-action lawsuit71 accusing the company of colluding with pharmacy benefit managers—individuals who negotiate drug pricing and availability with drug companies for the government and other insurance plans—to increase prices. Big Pharma and pharmacy benefit managers have been playing a blame game72 while lawmakers—who have held several hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives73 and the U.S. Senate74—try to find the source of America’s drug pricing problem.

Given the sway that Big Pharma has with the administration, the industry has no plans to reduce prescription drug prices or reverse past price gouging. For his part, President Trump tried but failed to pass the American Health Care Act of 2017, which would have hurt millions of Americans while benefiting the pharmaceutical industry, among others. However, he was successful in signing into law a new tax bill that lowered the corporate tax rate by 14 percent, allowing pharmaceutical companies, including those with ties to the Trump administration, to save a total of $76 billion.75 After the tax law was enacted, Eli Lilly received a tax cut of nearly $4.5 billion on offshore profits.76 Instead of using these tax savings to lower drug prices, big pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly together used $45 billion of their total tax savings77 to benefit shareholders via stock buyback programs. After President Trump helped Eli Lilly save billions, Azar, the company’s top executive, was confirmed to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services78 at the beginning of the following year.

Additional reading


Although the Trump administration keeps promising to lower drug prices, drug costs continue to climb as Americans suffer and pharmaceutical companies profit and their CEOs line their pockets. The government-funded research and major tax benefits that these pharmaceutical companies enjoy help them stay profitable. Meanwhile, they continue to hike up the costs of drugs, particularly life-sustaining drugs such as insulin.

Big Pharma can play this game indefinitely, benefiting from this culture of corruption, using allies in the administration and in Congress to grow their profit margins while everyday people suffer. But there are steps lawmakers can take to reduce the influence of special interests, including Big Pharma.79 For example, lobbyists are currently allowed to fundraise for candidates for federal office—and many of them provide far more financial support beyond the $2,800 per candidate limit by hosting fundraising events and bundling contributions. Banning lobbyists from fundraising80 for candidates would reduce special-interest influence over the legislative process. Another way to limit corrupting conflicts of interest is to ban members of Congress from accepting campaign donations from entities under the jurisdiction of the committees on which the serve. It is understood that conflicts can easily arise from committee contributions, which explains why 88 percent of voters support this prohibition.81 Additionally, Washington’s infamous revolving door between private industry and government must be closed. Proposals to do so include a lifetime lobbying ban on members of Congress and a five-year lobbying ban on senior congressional staffers.82

As Americans are caught trying to decide whether to pay for rent or medicine, pharmaceutical companies continue to reap government benefits. Reducing drug prices and the costs that everyday people must pay is not possible without fixing the broken system in Washington.


  1. Aimee Picchi, “Big Pharma ushers in new year by raising prices of more than 1,000 drugs,” CBS News, January 2, 2019, available at
  2. William Rice, Frank Clemente, and Kayla Kitson, “Bad Medicine: How GOP Tax Cuts Are Enriching Drug Companies, Leaving Workers & Patients Behind” (Washington: American for Tax Fairness, 2018), available at
  3. American Diabetes Association, “Statistics about Diabettes,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Type 1 Diabetes,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  5. Ed Silverman, “One-quarter of people with diabetes in the U.S. are rationing their insulin,” Stat, June 18, 2019, available at
  6. Ritu Prasad, “The human cost of insulin in America,” BBC News, March 14, 2019, available at
  7. Office of Congresswoman Diana DeGette, “Skyrocketing Insulin Cost: Congressional Diabetes Caucus Highlights Need and Ways to Bring Prices Down,” Press release, November 1, 2018, available at
  8. Antroinette Worsham, “Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform Hearing on ‘Examining the Actions of Drug Companies in Raising Prescription Drug Prices,’” January 29, 2019, available at
  9. Robin Cressman and others, “’We Either Buy Insulin or We Die,’” The New York Times, June 13, 2019, available at
  10. Forester McClatchey, “A Brief History of Insulin,” Beyond Type 1, October 31, 2016, available at
  11. Xinyang Hua, Natalie Carvalho, and Michelle Tew, “Expenditures and Prices of Antihyperglycemic Medications in the United States: 2002-2013,” Journal of the American Medical Association 315 (13) (2016): 1400­–1402, available at
  12. Michael Nedelman, “Amid uproar over high drug prices, Eli Lilly introduces generic insulin at half price of brand-name Humalog,” CNN, March 4, 2019, available at
  13. Dzintars Gotham, Melissa J. Barber, and Andrew Hill, “Production costs and potential prices for biosimilars of human insulin and insulin analogues,” BMJ Global Health 3 (5) (2018), available at
  14. Chairman Charles E. Grassley and Ranking Member Ron Wyden, “Letter from United States Senate Committee on Finance to Mr. David Ricks, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eli Lilly,” February 22, 2019, available at
  15. T1International, “Access to Insulin and Supplies Survey,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  16. Thomas Huelskoetter and Andrew Satter,“How Your Tax Payer Dollars Are Subsidizing Drug Companies,” Center for American Progress, July 12, 2018, available at
  17. Mariana Mazzucato, “Op-Ed: How taxpayers prop up Big Pharma, and how to cap that,” The Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2015, available at
  18. Ekaterina Galkina Cleary and others, “Contributions of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010-2016,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (10) (2018): 2329–2334, available at
  19. National Institutes of Health, “NIH Research Project Grant Program (R01),” available at (last accessed February 2019).
  20. Cleary and others, “Contributions of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010-2016.”
  21. Yair Holtzman, “U.S Research and Development Tax Credit,” The CPA Journal, October 1, 2017, available at
  22.  Ibid.
  23. Internal Revenue Service, “PATH Act Tax Related Provisions,” available at (last accessed June 2019).
  24. Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin , “Medical Marketing in the United States, 1997-2016,” Journal of the American Medical Association 321 (1) (2019): 80–96, available at
  25. Ibid.
  26. Aimee Picchi, “Drug prices in 2019 are surging, with hikes at 5 times inflation,” CBS News, July 1, 2019, available at
  27. Tami Luhby, “Drug makers resist pressure from Washington on drug prices,” CNN, January, 3, 2019, available at
  28. Ibid.
  29. Allergan, “Allergan Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2018 Financial Results,” January 29, 2019, available at
  30. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, “Teva Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2018 Financial Results,” Press release, February 13, 2019, available at
  31. Richard Knox, “$1,000 Pill for Hepatitis C Spurs Debate Over Drug Prices,” NPR, December 30, 2013, available at
  32. Madeline Twomey, “Comprehensive Reform to Lower Prescription Drug Prices,” Center for American Progress, January 29, 2019, available at
  33. Infohep, “Hepatitis C treatment factsheet: Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi),” available at (last accessed January 2017).
  34. U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, “Wyden-Grassley Sovaldi Investigation Finds Revenue-Driven Pricing Strategy Behind $84,000 Hepatitis Drug,” Press release, December 1, 2015, available at
  35. The Editorial Board, “How Big Pharma plays games with drug patents and how to combat it,” USA Today, July 18, 2019, available at
  36. Ibid.
  37. Robin Feldman, “May your drug price be evergreen,” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 5 (3) (2018): 590–647, available at
  38. Ibid.
  39. United States Government Accountability Office, “Drug Industry: Profits, Research and Development Spending and Merger and Acquisition Deals” (Washington: 2017), available at
  40. The Wall Street Journal, “Highest-Paid Pharmaceutical CEOs,” available at (last accessed January 2019).
  41. Picchi, “Drug prices in 2019 are surging, with hikes at 5 times inflation.”
  42. Pew Charitable Trusts, “A Look at Drug Spending in the U.S.” (Washington: 2018), available at
  43. Bob Herman, ”Axios analysis: Drugmakers getting richer,” Axios, May 13, 2019, available at
  44. Pew Charitable Trusts, “The Prescription Drug Landscape, Explored,” (Washington: 2019), available at
  45. Dan Mangan, “Medication costs fuel painful medical debt, bankruptcies,” CNBC, May 28, 2014, available at
  46. Kathleen Sebelius, Thomas R. Frieden, and Charles J. Rothwell, “Health United States, 2013: With Special Feature on Prescription Drugs” (Washington: U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2013), available at
  47. Robin A. Cohen, Peter Boersma, and Anjel Vahratian, “Strategies Used by Adults Aged 18–64 to Reduce Their Prescription Drug Costs, 2017” (Washington: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 2019), available at
  48. Bram Sable-Smith, “American Travelers Seek Cheaper Prescriptions Drugs In Mexico and Beyond,” NPR, February 11, 2019, available at
  49. Chantal Da Silva, “A ‘Caravan’ of Americans Is Crossing the Canadian Border To Get Affordable Medical Care,” Newsweek, May 7, 2019, available at
  50. Time staff, “Donald Trump on Russia, Advice from Barack Obama and How He Will Lead,” Time, December 7, 2016, available at
  51. Laura Lorenzetti, “Trump Somehow Plans to Negotiate Drug Prices to Zero,” Fortune, February 12, 2016, available at
  52. Executive Office of the President, “President Donald J. Trump’s Blueprint To Lower Drug Prices” (Washington: 2018), available at
  53. James Hamblin, “Has Trump Actually Done Anything About Drug Prices?”, The Atlantic, May 10, 2019, available at
  54. Congressional Budget Office, “Incorporating the Effects of the Proposed Rule on Safe Harbors for Pharmaceutical Rebates in CBO’s Budget Projections—Supplemental Material for Updated Budget Projections: 2019 to 2029” (Washington: 2019), available at
  55. Shamard Charles and Associated Press, “Why drug prices in TV ads may not lower costs,” NBC News, May 8, 2019, available at
  56. Selena Simmons-Duffin, “Will Displaying Drug List Prices In Ads Help Lower Costs?”, NPR, May 8, 2019, available at
  57. Robert Pear, “Requiring Prices in Drug Ads: Would It Do Any Good? Is It Even Legal?”, The New York Times, May 19, 2018, available at
  58. Rick Claypool, “Big Pharma Swamps Trump: Trump’s Tough Talk on Reining in Big Pharma Price Gouging Belies Deep Industry Influence Over the Trump Administration” (Washington: Public Citizen, 2018), available at
  59. Center for Responsive Politics, “Pharmaceuticals / Health Products: Money to Congress,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  60. Dena Bunis, “Senate Committee Approves Bill to Lower Prescription Drug Prices,” AARP, July 25, 2019, available at
  61. Juliette Cubanski and others, “What’s the Latest on Medicare Drug Price Negotiations?”, Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, July 23, 2019, available at
  62. Restore Public Trust, “Big Pharma’s Best Friends,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  63. Kaiser Health News, “Trump’s Health Czar Tom Price Was a Pal to Big Pharma,” The Daily Beast, April 11, 2017, available at
  64. Robert Faturechi, “Tom Price Bought Drug Stocks. Then He Pushed Pharma’s Agenda in Australia.,” ProPublica, June 1, 2017, available at
  65. Peter Baker, Glenn Thrush, and Maggie Haberman, “Health Secretary Tom Price Resigns After Drawing Ire for Chartered Flights,” The New York Times, September 29, 2017, available at
  66. Center for Responsive Politics, “Employment History: Grogan, Joseph,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  67. Maggie Fox, “Hepatitis C cure eludes patients as states struggle with costs,” NBC News, May 6, 2018, available at
  68. Emily Kopp, “Exclusive: White House Task Force Echoes Pharma Proposals,” Kaiser Health News, June 16, 2017, available at
  69. Center for Responsive Politics, “Pharmaceuticals/Health Products,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  70. Center for Responsive Politics, “Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: Lobbying, 2019,” available at (last accessed August 2019).
  71. Jef Feeley and Robert Langreth, “Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Sanofi Must Face Insulin Drug Pricing Suit,” Bloomberg, February 15, 2019, available at
  72. Berkeley Lovelace Jr. and Ashley Turner, “CVS, Cigna, Humana blame Big Pharma at Senate hearing for skyrocketing US drug prices,” CNBC, April 9, 2019, available at
  73. Robert Pear, “Lawmakers in Both Parties Vow to Rein In Insulin Costs,” The New York Times, April 10, 2019, available at
  74. Robert Pear, “Drug Makers Try to Justify Prescription Prices to Senators at Hearing,” The New York Times, February 26, 2019, available at
  75. Rice, Clemente, and Kitson, “Bad Medicine.”
  76. Ibid.
  77. The Office of U.S. Senator Cory Booker, “New Booker Report Highlights How Pharma Firms Are Using Tax Savings,” Press release, April 10, 2018, available at
  78. Daniella Diaz and Tami Luhby, “Senate confirms HHS secretary nominee Alex Azar,” CNN, January 24, 2018, available at
  79. Michael Sozan and William Roberts, “10 Far-Reaching Congressional Ethics Reforms to Strengthen U.S. Democracy” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2019), available at
  80. Ibid.
  81. Ibid.
  82. Michael Sozan and others, “Bold Democracy Reforms That Build on H.R.1” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2019), available at

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.


Abbey Meller

Organizing Associate

Hauwa Ahmed

Senior Policy Analyst


Democracy Policy

The Democracy Policy team is advancing an agenda to win structural reforms that strengthen the U.S. system and give everyone an equal voice in the democratic process.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Just released!

Interactive: Mapping access to abortion by congressional district

Click here