Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Defense Production Act of 1950 to prohibit the Federal Government from limiting State access to key therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies, and from prioritizing Federal contracts over State contracts relating to purchasing supplies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
Description: This bill restricts various presidential and federal authorities related to the acquisition of supplies to combat COVID-19. Specifically, the bill prohibits the President from exercising certain authorities under the Defense Production Act of 1950 to prioritize the performance of federal contracts or orders for COVID-19 supplies over the performance of state or territorial contracts or orders. In addition, states or territories may use federal COVID-19 relief funds for COVID-19 supplies that they had been unable to purchase because of prioritized performance of federal contracts or orders. (The Defense Production Act of 1950 confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in order to provide essential materials and goods needed for the national defense.) Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration may not ration, limit, restrict access to, or otherwise control the quantity of a medical product authorized for use during an emergency, including by requiring products to be distributed through a state- or territorial-based system.
Sponsors: Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]
Target Audience
Population: People of the world
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill impacts individuals in the United States as it restricts the federal government's ability to prioritize its own contracts for COVID-19 supplies over those of states.
- This implies that states could have more access to COVID-19 supplies, directly impacting residents who require medical treatments such as monoclonal antibodies.
- Given the nature of the bill, it fundamentally affects individuals needing medical imports such as therapies and supplies for combating COVID-19.
- This also suggests potential indirect impacts on broader public health management capabilities across states during emergencies.
Reasoning
- The bill affects individuals differently based on their access to and reliance on medical products for COVID-19 treatment.
- People in health-compromised situations or those with high exposure risk are likely to be most affected in terms of their wellbeing.
- States with previously constrained access to necessary COVID-19 supplies might experience a shift in healthcare outcomes, indirectly improving Cantril wellbeing scores of residents.
- The bill does not directly allocate funds for personal finances or widespread healthcare system upgrades beyond supply chain alterations, hence the impact on self-reported wellbeing can vary significantly.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this policy, I believe hospitals like ours might get supplies faster, reducing stress on our teams.
- However, I worry about the federal government's overall strategic ability being limited.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Warehouse Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this change could mean that we won't have to wait as long to get emergency orders fulfilled.
- It's complicated but could streamline local response without waiting for federal clearance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this means my state can directly buy supplies it needs.
- I'm worried what happens during shortages if states run low sooner without federal prioritization.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Public Health Official (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could allow a more nuanced and rapid local response which is crucial for public health.
- It might also lead to inconsistencies if states diverge too much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
COVID-19 Contact Tracer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My immediate concern is job security, will there be shifts in funding with this policy?
- If this helps faster state response, that might stabilize my role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully this means more stability in supply chains if states have immediate access.
- I'm cautious about how this plays out for businesses indirectly reliant on healthcare supply lines.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Pharmacist (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels like more control locally would improve our ability to serve patients during the pandemic.
- It is vital to ensure that this doesn't lead to competition between states to the detriment of supply.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Unemployed due to COVID-19 (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am hopeful that increased state control means better access to necessary treatments.
- There's an element of wait-and-see, as past promises have been mixed in outcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm enthusiastic about policies that improve supply to states faster during crises.
- But we also need accountability to ensure fair distribution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
State Government Official (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is crucial to ensure states have the flexibility to respond swiftly to emergencies.
- Balancing this flexibility with coordinated federal support will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $170000000)
Year 3: $125000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $180000000)
Year 5: $130000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $190000000)
Year 10: $140000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $160000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill reallocates existing federal COVID-19 relief funds rather than requiring new spending.
- Federal oversight limitations may hinder rapid, coordinated responses to national emergencies.
- There's a potential for increased costs and inefficiencies in the supply chain due to decentralized procurement.
- Variation in how states utilize allowed freedom could lead to inconsistent access to COVID-19 supplies across the country.