DOCSLIB.ORG

Gov. Brown Extends Ban on Price-Gouging to Six Months October 25

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gov. Brown Extends Ban on Price-Gouging to Six Months October 25 Item 6,a.(1) CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION Gov. Brown extends ban on price-gouging to six months October 25. 2017 Of RENT INCREASES LIMITED TO 10 PERCENT Under an executive order by Gov. Jerry Brown, protections against price-gouging in the wake of the North Bay fires — including rent increases over 10 percent — will be in effect until at least April of next year. The ban on price gouging, which originally had a 30-day time limit, is now in effect until April 18, 2018. ONLINE RESOURCES • CAA Wildfire Resource Center » • New! Industry Insight: Anti-Price Gouging Laws - States of Emergency • Attorney General’s Office:FAQs on Price Gouging The state’s anti-price gouging law went into effect earlier this month after the president and governor issued a state of emergency in California. These protections prohibit raising the price of many consumer goods and services, including that of rental housing, by more than 10 percent after an emergency has been declared. Protections under California’s anti-price-gouging law are not restricted to the city or county where the disaster occurred. The aim is to prevent price gouging anywhere in the state with an increased consumer demand resulting from the declared emergency. State or local officials can extend disaster declarations for additional 30-day periods after the initial declaration expires. Because the price-gouging law does not set clear parameters for determining where the price controls apply, rent increases exceeding 10 percent — anywhere in California — may constitute price gouging while the declaration is in effect. Members who are unsure whether the price CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION controls apply to their property should seek the advice of an attorney before implementing any increase of more than 10 percent. The California Apartment Association has asked members to refrain from raising rents at all during this state of emergency. Anyone convicted of violating the statewide anti-price-gouging law can face a year in county jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, as well as civil penalties. Local ordinances may impose additional penalties. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ALSO TAKE ON PRICE GOUGING : On Tuesday, the city of Santa Rosa passed an anti-price gouging ordinance which is more restrictive than the state’s own ban on the practice. This ordinance bases the 10 percent price cap on the amount charged for each particular housing unit immediately prior to the city’s Oct. 9 declaration of emergency. The ordinance also bars landlords from charging an incoming tenant rent higher than that charged immediately prior to Oct. 9 if the previous tenant of the unit was evicted, regardless of the reason for the eviction. The ordinance does make an exception to these prohibitions when the amount of an increase is directly attributable to additional costs for labor and materials. CAA recommends consulting with an attorney prior to making such a rent increase. All rental units in the city of Santa Rosa, including single-family homes and new construction, are subject to the ordinance. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors considered a similar ordinance but tabled the matter after the district attorney expressed concerns that the ordinance might interfere with her ability to prosecute violators under state law. In Lake County, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance barring landlords from evicting tenants to raise rent on particular unit to a higher rate than that charged immediately before Oct. 9. This ordinance applies to all rental units in the unincorporated areas of the county. Related content: Sonoma County and Santa Rosa approve measures to improve housing availability (Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Oct. 24) Fines in effect for rent gouging (Record-Bee, Oct. 23) With 5% of its housing destroyed by fire. Santa Rosa faces wrenching questions about its future(Los Angeles Times, Oct. 24) They survived the California fires. Now, the crisis is finding housing (CNN, Oct. 21) Got housing? How you can help fire refugees in the North Bay (San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 21) hag ~ Click to staff; on Twitter (Opena in-few window)! . Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new windowl 11/13/2017 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/printCodeSectionWindow.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=396.'&op_statues=2016&op_chapter=671... Distributed at the meeting PENAL CODE- PEN PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] ( Part 1 enacted 1872. ) TITLE 10. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY [369a - 402c] ( Title 10 enacted 1872. ) (a) The Legislature hereby finds that during a state of emergency or local emergency, including, but not limited to, an earthquake, flood, fire, riot, storm, drought, plant or animal infestation or disease, or other natural or manmade disaster, some 396. merchants have taken unfair advantage of consumers by greatly increasing prices for essential consumer goods and services. While the pricing of consumer goods and services is generally best left to the marketplace under ordinary conditions, when a declared state of emergency or local emergency results in abnormal disruptions of the market, the public interest requires that excessive and unjustified increases in the prices of essential consumer goods and services be prohibited. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect citizens from excessive and unjustified increases in the prices charged during or shortly after a declared state of emergency or local emergency for goods and services that are vital and necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of consumers. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that this section be liberally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be served. (b) Upon the proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the Governor, or upon the declaration of a local emergency by an official, board, or other governing body vested with authority to make such a declaration in any county, city, or city and county, and for a period of 30 days following that proclamation or declaration, it is unlawful for a person, contractor, business, or other entity to sell or offer to sell any consumer food items or goods, goods or services used for emergency cleanup, emergency supplies, medical supplies, home heating oil, building materials, housing, transportation, freight, and storage services, or gasoline or other motor fuels for a price of more than 10 percent above the price charged by that person for those goods or services immediately prior to the proclamation or declaration of emergency. However, a greater price increase is not unlawful if that person can prove that the increase in price was directly attributable to additional costs imposed on it by the supplier of the goods, or directly attributable to additional costs for labor or materials used to provide the services, provided that in those situations where the increase in price is attributable to additional costs imposed by the seller’s supplier or additional costs of providing the good or service during the state of emergency or local emergency, the price represents no more than 10 percent above the total of the cost to the seller plus the markup customarily applied by the seller for that good or service in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the state of emergency or local emergency. (c) Upon the proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the Governor, or upon the declaration of a local emergency by an official, board, Or other governing body vested with authority to make such a declaration in any county, city, or city and county, and for a period of 180 days following that proclamation or declaration, it is unlawful for a contractor to sell or offer to sell any repair or reconstruction services or any services used in emergency cleanup for a price of more than 10 percent above the price charged by that person for those services immediately prior to the proclamation or declaration of emergency. However, a greater price increase is not unlawful if that person can prove that the increase in price was directly attributable to additional costs imposed on it by the supplier of the goods, or directly attributable to additional costs for labor or materials used to provide the services, provided that in those situations where the increase in price is attributable to the additional costs imposed by the contractor’s supplier or additional costs of providing the service during the state of emergency or local emergency, the price represents no more than 10 percent above the total of the cost to the contractor plus the markup customarily applied by the contractor for that good or service in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the state of emergency or local emergency. (d) Upon the proclamation of a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the Governor, or upon the declaration of a local emergency by an official, board, or other governing body vested with authority to make such a declaration in any county, city, or city and county, and for a period of 30 days following that proclamation or declaration, it is unlawful for an owner or operator of a hotel or motel to increase the hotel or motel’s regular rates, as advertised immediately prior to the proclamation or declaration of emergency, by more than 10 percent. However, a greater price increase is not unlawful if the owner or https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/printCodeSectionWindow.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=396.&op_statues=2016&op_chapter=671&op_sec... 1/2 n/13/2Ui l mtps://leginto.legislature.ca.gov/faces/printCodeSectionWindow.xhtrnl?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=396.&op_statues=2016&op_chapter=671..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Sticky-Price View of Hoarding ∗
    A Sticky-Price View of Hoarding ∗ Christopher Hansman Harrison Hong Aureo de Paula Imperial College London Columbia University University College London Vishal Singh New York University November 8, 2018 Abstract Governments worry that household hoarding of staple foods during times of high prices destabilizes com- modity markets. The conventional view has hoarding—due to consumer precaution or panic—amplifying supply shocks and creating shortages. Using U.S. store-scanner data during the 2008 Global Rice Crisis, we reject this narrative. Areas with rice-eating populations had more hoarding but no difference in store price dynamics or stockouts. We find support instead for a reverse-causal channel, whereby sticky store prices lead to hoarding. Anticipating higher prices, rice-eating households bought rice from slow-to-adjust stores that implicitly offered promotions. Policy implications differ across these two views. ∗This paper was previously circulated as "Hoard Behavior and Commodity Bubbles". We thank seminar participants at INSEAD, Aalto, Peking University, Warwick University, Cambridge University, NBER Universities Conference on Commodities, HKUST, New York University, PUC-Rio and Yale University for helpful comments. We are also grateful to Emi Nakamura, Hassan Afrousi, Michael Woodford, William Goetzmann, Hank Bessembinder, Manuel Arellano, Orazio Attanasio, Richard Blundell, Marcelo Fernandes, Bo Honoré, Guy Laroque, Valerie Lechene and Elie Tamer for useful conversations. de Paula gratefully acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council through Starting Grant 338187 and the Economic and Social Research Council through the ESRC Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice grant RES-589-28-0001. 1 Introduction Household hoarding of staple foods—defined as the accumulation of inventories during times of high prices—has long been a concern of governments, particularly in developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. and European Authorities Actively Pursue COVID-19 Price Gouging Violations
    U.S. and European authorities actively pursue COVID-19 price gouging violations 20 April 2020 The COVID-19 crisis has led to increased scrutiny of pricing decisions by competition and consumer protection authorities around the world. Already, we have seen a rise in state, federal, and international enforcement efforts in response to rapidly increasing complaints of price gouging activity related to products that are in high demand or designated as essential by statute or executive action as a result of the crisis. In light of this, companies should be aware of several aspects of price gouging laws and recent enforcement activity: First, normal supply and demand rules may not apply during a crisis – that is, sellers who normally respond to increased demand by increasing prices may violate state price gouging laws which prohibit price increases over a certain amount during emergencies. Second, online marketplaces (i.e., platforms) are also facing scrutiny from state and federal regulators for allowing sellers to price gouge on their sites. Whether online marketplaces can be held liable for the pricing practices of their users will likely vary based on state law, the potential application of certain defenses, and the characteristics of the specific platform. Third, price gouging laws and enforcement priorities vary state-by-state and country-by- country. A single pricing decision may be lawful in one jurisdiction but unlawful in another. Fourth, responses to price gouging during this pandemic are still evolving. Some jurisdictions have taken executive and legislative actions to bolster their existing price gouging laws to allow for a more targeted response to the COVID-19 crisis, and more are sure to follow.
    [Show full text]
  • Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage James I
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 33 Article 6 Issue 4 Summer 2002 2002 Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage James I. Serota Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James I. Serota, Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage, 33 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 791 (2002). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol33/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monopoly Pricing in a Time of Shortage James L Serota* I. INTRODUCTION Traditionally, the electric power industry has been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Recently, the industry has been evolving towards increasing emphasis on market competition and less pervasive regulation. Much of the initial impetus for change has occurred during periods of reduced demand and increased supply. More recently, increases in demand and supply shortages have led to brownouts, rolling blackouts, price spikes and accusations of "price gouging."' The purpose of this paper is to examine the underlying economic and legal bases for regulation and antitrust actions, and the antitrust ground rules for assessing liability for "monopoly pricing in times of shortage." In this author's view, price changes in response to demand are the normal reaction of a competitive market, and efforts to limit price changes in the name of "price gouging" represent an effort to return to pervasive regulation of electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Prices in a Time of Corona: the Law and Economics of Price-Gouging
    Prices in a time of corona: the law and economics of price-gouging Thomas Spencer, EPICENTER The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted widespread calls for stricter regulation of price gouging across the European Union. Whilst the calls come from a good place, they are ignorant of the economic costs that this will impose. The TFEU already provides sufficient restrictions on price gouging, and any further efforts to clamp down on the practice would harm consumers. Where an economic shock occurs, prices will often rise. If regulators were to intervene to prevent rising prices, then in the short run this would lead to those who need vital supplies the most being unable to procure them, and in the long-run it will ensure that any shortages that do occur become much worse. Instead, the European Commission should use the tools they already have at their disposal, which provide an effective mechanism against the more egregious offences. The powers of the Commission The main instrument the European Commission has at its disposal to act against price gouging is through Article 102 TFEU. This provision prohibits “any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market”. The treaty provides a non-exhaustive list of actions that could be prohibited. The most relevant of these prohibits “directly or indirectly imposing (an) unfair purchase price”. The key case defining how this works is United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207. This laid out that a price is unfair where it “has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product”.
    [Show full text]
  • State Price Gouging Laws
    State Price Gouging Laws Generally, when a state’s governor declares a “state of emergency,” this automatically puts the state’s “price gouging” law into place. However, there are some exceptions; for example, in Tennessee, the price gouging law is triggered by a declaration of “abnormal economic disruption.” To learn more about actions and authorities triggered by state emergency declarations, visit the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials here. Following is a chart showing which states have a price gouging law. Some laws are enacted through the state’s legislature while some laws are put in place by the state’s office of Attorney General. Where available, we have also included pending legislation. All states give consumers the ability to file a complaint; read more from your state’s Consumer Protection Offices here. Many states and the District of Columbia have declared a state of emergency; read more in the Notes section below. State Price Gouging Law Notes/State of Emergency Notices Alabama Alabama Unconscionable Pricing Act Makes it unlawful for anyone to raise prices on commodities or lodging by more than 25 percent during a declared state of emergency. To avoid violation, figure the price charged for each of the previous 30 days. Add the 30 daily prices, divide by 30, and multiply the price by .25, or 25 percent, to determine the maximum price increase allowed for any one day. The exception is if a wholesale price increases by more than 25 percent and merchants have no choice but to pass along the price increase. [Type here] The fine for violations can be up to $1,000 per incident.
    [Show full text]
  • The Epipen Controversy Byron a Ellis – September 03, 2016
    The EpiPen Controversy Byron A Ellis – September 03, 2016 The Jethro Project - Heather Bresch, Mylan Chief Executive Officer (CEO), the daughter of Senator Manchin, former governor of West Virginia, worked as a clerk for Mylan, a generic drug company in 1992 and became its CEO in 2012. When her father was Governor of West Virginia, West Virginia University (WVU) granted her a Master of Business Administration degree without having fulfilled all requirements. The degree was later rescinded, and WVU President Mike Garrison, provost Gerald Lang, and business-school dean R. Stephen Sears resigned. Mylan, under the leadership of Senator Manchin’s daughter, completed a corporate tax inversion plan in 2015 and moved to the Netherlands, a country with lower tax rates. In 2007, Mylan acquired from Merck the rights to the legacy EpiPen drug, used to treat anaphylaxis. It lobbied the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to broaden the EpiPen label, as well as Congress to pass legislation for making the EpiPen available in schools; both actions opened broader markets for the EpiPen product. While acquiring larger markets, Mylan was simultaneously increasing the EpiPen price from under $100 to around $600. Many parents needing the lifesaving EpiPen drug for their kids believe that the price hikes are a form of price gouging. As a result, some members of Congress have called for investigations of the exorbitant price increases. Mylan reacted to the public outrage by proposing two different prices for the same product. The practice of charging different prices for the same good or service is known as price discrimination.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimizing Risk at the Antitrust/Price-Gouging Intersection After Covid-19
    Professional Perspective Minimizing Risk at the Antitrust/Price-Gouging Intersection After Covid-19 Susannah P. Torpey and Patrick S. Opdyke, Winston & Strawn Reproduced with permission. Published June 2020. Copyright © 2020 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. 800.372.1033. For further use, please visit: http://bna.com/copyright-permission-request/ Minimizing Risk at the Antitrust/Price-Gouging Intersection After Covid-19 Contributed by Susannah P. Torpey and Patrick S. Opdyke, Winston & Strawn While challenges to high prices set collusively have always been an enforcement priority of the antitrust agencies, the past decade has arguably produced more debate about the effects of low, rather than high, prices when set unilaterally. A clear focus throughout the last decade has been the shuttering of brick and mortar competitors unable to keep step with low prices enabled by the digital economy, the leveraging of big data, and algorithmic pricing. With the rise of digital gatekeepers competing with participants on the very platforms they created, competitors have raised concerns about predatory prices allegedly used to drive out competitors and recoup lost profits later on; zero- priced products and self-preferential treatment used to enable monopoly leveraging across secondary markets; and artificially low prices subsidized with monopoly profits arbitraged from other markets in order to erect insurmountable barriers to entry in more nascent product markets. The great irony is that the same competitors that have been scrutinized for predatorily low-priced products over the past decade are now the subject of numerous price-gouging complaints. Some may argue we are now seeing the recoupment predicted in past years, but this fails to explain the prevalence of price increases among small third-party sellers partaking in price increases alongside digital giants.
    [Show full text]
  • Price Gouging and the Pandemic: an Economic Perspective
    Volume 18 No. 1 Spring 2020 this view, shortages of products like hand sanitizer and toilet Price Gouging and the Pandemic: An paper may not have occurred during the pandemic if retailers Economic Perspective had been able to raise the prices of these products rather than instituting belated and easily circumvented purchase limits. Laurien Gilbert1 Other economists point out that the argument against market During declared states of emergency, sellers that raise prices intervention through price gouging laws ignores two key may face allegations of price gouging, leading to civil suits, issues: the potential for market failures during an emergency, state enforcement actions, and in certain circumstances, and the possibility that when the price of necessary goods federal enforcement actions. The current state of emergency is rises, lower-income households will be unable to afford them. no exception: the coronavirus pandemic has already begun to As to the first issue, an emergency may create market failures generate price gouging complaints, such as allegations that that give some sellers temporary market power. Such retailers and retailer platforms such as Amazon and eBay temporary increases in market power might result from the charged excessive prices for a range of items, including face shut-down of some of their competitors or from consumers’ masks, toilet paper and cleaning products.2 Grocery retailers reduced willingness to comparison shop during an emergency. and egg producers have been targeted by a California class The reduction in competition might allow some sellers to raise action alleging illegal price gouging related to egg prices after prices in response to the crisis-related demand increase by a state of emergency was declared.3 Meanwhile, consumers more than they would have been able to if they faced greater across the country have experienced shortages of certain competition.6 Imposing temporary price limits might mitigate goods.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics Versus Economics: the Epipen Scandal and the Role of the F
    Fusari: Ethics Versus Economics: The EpiPen Scandal and the Role of the F Ethics Versus Economics: The EpiPen Scandal and the Role of the FDA Daniel Fusari April 22, 2021 Industry Analysis Abstract: In this study, industry analysis is performed on the health care sector and pharmaceutical market, specifically on the auto-injector of epinephrine known as the EpiPen. In literature review, expert opinions on the economics and ethics of events that occurred surrounding the companies price gouging tactics are reviewed. How Mylan came about acquiring the monopoly and holding its grasp is also discussed. Data shows how the company’s profits significantly increased every year while consumers struggled to pay the price out of pocket. Suggestions are made on potential ways to create more power for consumers in the market, as well as promote competition for suppliers. Published by DigitalCommons@SHU, 2021 1 Academic Festival, Event 17 [2021] INTRODUCTION The EpiPen scandal in the United States of America is a fatal shortcoming of the health care industry. EpiPen treats Anaphylaxis, a life-threatening condition in which a person experiences an allergic response to a substance in their environment. Common causes of Anaphylaxis include foods, insect bites and strings, as well as medications (Peters). Many factors contribute to the rise in price for the life saving medication, including the fact the Mylan has a monopoly on the product. Mylan is a company owned by publicly traded Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. The controversy began when the price of the drug, anaphylaxis, increased approximately 25% each year for over a decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Price Gouging and the Covid-19 Crisis – This Time Is (A Little) Different
    PRICE GOUGING AND THE COVID-19 CRISIS – THIS TIME IS (A LITTLE) DIFFERENT BY MICHAEL A. SALINGER1 1 Boston University Questrom School of Business. CPI ANTITRUST CHRONICLE I. INTRODUCTION – CONTRASTING VIEWS OF SEPTEMBER 2020 ECONOMISTS AND THE PUBLIC The conventional definition of economics is the study of the allocation of Price Gouging and the COVID-19 Crisis – scarce resources among alternative uses; and both economic research This Time Is (a Little) Different and teaching focus heavily on the role of a decentralized price mechanism By Michael A. Salinger in accomplishing this task. In his 1979 Presidential Address to the Amer- ican Economic Association, Robert Solow observed, “Ever since Adam Uncertainty in U.S. Price-Gouging Law Smith, economists have been distinguished from lesser mortals by their Compliance and Defense understanding of and - I think one has to say - their admiration for the By Ann O’Brien & Brady Cummins efficiency, anonymity, and subtlety of decentralized competitive markets as an instrument for the allocation of resources and the imputation of 2 Price Gouging Amidst the COVID-19 incomes.” His observation that “lesser mortals” – i.e. non-economists – do not accept the arguments economists make about the desirability of Pandemic By Vic Domen & Daniella Torrealba market outcomes is surely correct. As evidence, Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler3 reported the results of a telephone survey in which 82 percent of respondents said that they considered it unfair for a local hardware store to Robbin’ Hood raise the price of snow shovels from its normal price of $15 to $20 during By Harry First a snow storm.
    [Show full text]
  • Theorizing Entrepreneurial Price Gouging: Interdependency, Injustice
    A RETHINKING Pandemic and MARXISM the Crisis of Dossier Capitalism Critique of Political Economy—Pandemic Edition 1 In an open letter plies and toilet paper on eBay, Amazon, and $1.4 billion, leaving $1.5 explaining the pricing billion in pretax revenue Gilead chose for the Craigslist (Tiffany 2020), to drug companies that (Nathan-Kazis 2020). COVID-19 drug rem- jack up prices for medications like insulin—and desivir—$3,120 for a remdesivir (Thomas 2019).1 five-day course of treat- ment—Daniel O’Day At best, entrepreneurship is just another word In the United States, the federal government (2020), the chairman and for capitalistic behavior. CEO of Gilead Sciences, failed to take responsibility for regulating the wrote that the company —“What Does Determine the Profit Rate? The Neoclassical prices of necessities during the pandemic ini- chose to “price remde- Theories Presented in Introductory Textbooks,” tially, leaving a void to be filled by private enti- sivir well below” the Michele Naples and Nahid Aslanbeigui savings that will result ties, some of which enacted more seemingly from shorter hospital ethical policies than gov- stays. An investment 2 ernment itself. From a 2 Trump signed Execu- bank analyst calls the It can be tempting to view tive Order 13,910 on 23 price a “spectacularly social-reproduction per- March 2020, prohibit- good value” (Lupkin hoarders, price gougers, Theorizing spective, one would expect ing hoarding and price 2020). Critics of Gilead and people who refuse to capitalist employers to gouging related to health range from Public Citi- wear masks during pub- Entrepreneurial Price and medical resources, zen, which described the respond if illness threat- including N95 masks, pricing as an “offensive lic health crises like the Gouging: ens their ability to extract respirators, ventilators, display of hubris and COVID-19 pandemic as surplus value through the hydroxycholoroquine disregard for the pub- selfish jerks with antiso- Interdependency, (HCL), medical gowns, lic,” to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • PREVENTING DRUG PRICE GOUGING: GOVERNMENT POWER and INITIATIVES Sydney Reed
    (6) FINAL MACRO VERSION - SYDNEY REED ARTICLE (PP. 165-194) (DO NOT DELETE) 3/9/2020 9:49 AM 19 Hous. J. Health L. & Policy 167 Copyright © 2019 Sydney Reed Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy PREVENTING DRUG PRICE GOUGING: GOVERNMENT POWER AND INITIATIVES Sydney Reed INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 169 I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 169 A. Media Attention on the Issue ................................................ 169 B. Effects of High and Increasing Cost of Drugs ...................... 170 1. Effects of High and Increasing Cost of Drugs on the Cost of Healthcare as a Whole ...................................... 170 2. Effects of High and Increasing Cost of Drugs on Individuals ....................................................................... 171 C. Difficulty of Pricing Drugs and Lack of Consumer Purchasing Power ................................................................. 172 II. CURRENT FEDERAL REGULATION, ACTION, AND INACTION ............. 174 A. Congressional Action .............................................................. 174 B. Executive Action ...................................................................... 175 C. FDA Action ............................................................................... 176 1. Publication of Drugs without Approved Generics to Boost Market Competition ............................................ 178 2. Priority Review to Reduce
    [Show full text]