Bill Overview
Title: A bill 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: Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally who require access to COVID-19 related medical products and therapies for treatment
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill impacts state governments by allowing them more freedom in accessing COVID-19 supplies and therapies without being secondary to federal priorities.
- It impacts pharmaceutical companies and suppliers involved in the production and distribution of COVID-19 treatments and therapies as they would now need to navigate potentially varied state requirements and contracts alongside federal ones.
- The bill affects the federal government's ability to exercise centralized control over the distribution of COVID-19 supplies and therapies.
- This could potentially alter the availability and distribution of COVID-19 treatments nationwide, impacting healthcare providers and their patients.
- The general public, specifically individuals who may require COVID-19 therapies like monoclonal antibodies, would be indirectly affected through changes in supply access and distribution pathways.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts different groups in diverse ways. Healthcare providers and patients in states may benefit from increased access or decreased delays in medical products due to more direct state-level acquisition without federal prioritization.
- Pharmaceutical companies and suppliers face increased complexity with decentralized state contracts and operations, which could affect supply logistics, pricing, and availability nationwide.
- Federal coordination may experience challenges in uniform national distribution, possibly leading to disparities among states.
- Elderly and high-risk individuals may experience differences in availability of treatments based on state policies.
Simulated Interviews
retired teacher (Florida)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The federal government usually knows best how to manage large issues like this.
- I'm glad my state might get more control, but I'm worried there might be supply issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
supply chain manager for a pharmaceutical company (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy complicates our operations but might be beneficial for some state's populations.
- We'll face challenges, but ultimately, it's important everyone gets what they need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
ER nurse (Illinois)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need consistent supply, no matter who controls it.
- If this helps us get what we need faster, I'm all for it, but it must be reliable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
state health official (Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State control allows more tailored strategies.
- I'm confident in our ability to manage this responsibly with the new freedoms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
small business owner (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every delay in treatment impacts business recovery.
- I hope more state control means faster progress and fewer restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
retired nurse (Alabama)
Age: 73 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this ensures better access to treatments out here.
- Federal oversight seemed more comprehensive; state handling is new to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
college student (Washington)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might make state supply systems more responsive.
- I'm concerned it could disrupt nationwide treatment efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
pharmacist (Michigan)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State-level changes in supply could affect medication stock and availability.
- I hope this policy will make it easier to restock essential items.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
social worker (Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- States should tailor health solutions for their communities.
- Federal uniformity can also ensure consistency across the board.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
public health researcher (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies must balance between federal oversight and state flexibility.
- The data might show varied impacts; monitoring will be key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The availability of monoclonal antibodies and other key therapies may vary significantly across states depending on their purchasing power and negotiation capabilities.
- Healthcare providers in different states might experience varying levels of supply reliability, potentially impacting patient care.
- Infrastructure changes at the state level may take time to implement effectively, leading to transitional challenges.
- Legal ambiguities regarding the distribution of federal relief funds might require additional oversight or lead to disputes.