The pharmaceutical industry’s frequent flyers and empty promises

“Affordability” is the watchword in American politics today. Inflation is squeezing families, but nothing hits harder than the cost of trying to stay alive. Yet as patients weigh whether they can afford their prescriptions, private jets owned by six of the largest U.S. drugmakers touched down at Washington-area airports at least 127 times this year, according to flight-tracking data compiled by Endpoints News. That contrast paints a telling picture.

The United States pays nearly three times what other wealthy nations pay for prescription drugs. Millions of Americans skip doses, split pills or leave prescriptions unfilled. In 2023, more than one-quarter of adults delayed or avoided care because they simply couldn’t afford it. Those private planes aren’t ferrying pharmaceutical executives to Washington to push for drug affordability and patient access — they’re there to defend the obscene profits built on the backs of American families.

According to a report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, ten large pharmaceutical companies earned about $112 billion in profits in 2022. According to a 2025 ranking of the most profitable pharmaceutical companies globally, over the past 12 months Merck & Co. posted roughly $19 billion in net income; Eli Lilly and Company about $18.4 billion — figures that underscore just how much money remains after costs are factored in.

Among those costs are marketing prescription drugs directly to consumers — a practice outlawed in 193 other countries. According to a 2024-2025 study, drug companies spent more than $10.1 billion marketing prescription drugs to everyday Americans, turning medical decisions into product marketing, encouraging patients to demand expensive medications they may not need, further driving up costs.

The crisis, it seems, is one of unbridled greed. Which brings us back to Washington.

The pharmaceutical and health products industry spent about $372 million lobbying Washington in 2022, nearly $300 million in 2024, and already over $334 million by fall 2025 — as President Trump’s team pushed new pricing rules. When you consider how much money is pumped into influencing government, it is no surprise that drug prices remain so high. And Pharma spreads that money nearly equally across both parties, mostly to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — the body that oversees drug policy.

Big Pharma buys influence in other ways: as the Wall Street Journal reported, Trump has been pitching a new “TrumpRx” plan — a so-called reform that channels patients through direct-sale platforms like BlinkRx — a scheme tied to his very own family. BlinkRx recently added Donald Trump, Jr. to its board.

The “revolving door” tells the same story. Former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) helped write the 2003 Medicare drug law that prohibited Medicare from negotiating prices. The day after leaving Congress, he walked into a seven-figure job running PhRMA, the industry trade association.

This isn’t a partisan issue: Democrats are in on the fix as well.

During Affordable Care Act negotiations, the Obama administration cut a deal with PhRMA: in exchange for an $80 billion promise of so-called “savings,” Democrats — who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress — agreed not to allow Medicare drug price negotiation, and prohibited the importation of cheaper drugs from overseas. Both would have significantly cut drug costs.

Neither party gets to claim the moral high ground after decades of harmful backroom dealings in which drugmakers keep their pricing power, lobbyists keep their contracts, and politicians keep receiving donations and post-government career opportunities … while patients keep footing the bill.

Put simply, drugs will never be more affordable until we cut the financial ties that allow both parties to profit from the status quo, as well as end direct to consumer advertising for drugs. Whe should ban conflicts of interest. Presidents, Cabinet officials and members of Congress should be barred from advancing policies that benefit companies in which they or their families have equity, board seats or advisory roles.

Lawmakers and senior staff who oversee health policy should also be prohibited from negotiating jobs with pharma, Pharmacy Benefit Managers or trade groups for several years after leaving office.

We should also establish genuine Medicare negotiation between government and drugmakers: End the loopholes and carve-outs that allow industry to run roughshod over consumers. Negotiations should be real and transparent.

We must further put doctors back in control of prescribing needed medicines: End direct-to-consumer advertising as other nations do, by classifying it as a health risk.

There are bipartisan bills that would help the American people, but face intense opposition from well-heeled lobbyists. One would restrict lawmakers and families from trading stocks in industries they regulate, including pharma stocks. Another, the TRUST in Congress Act, requires blind trusts and stricter conflict-of-interest rules.

There is also the Insulin Act, a bipartisan initiative that demonstrates a shared commitment to affordability. The Lower Costs, More Cures Act expands transparency, accelerates generics and adds modest negotiation tools.

These measures are a good beginning and suggest that bipartisan reform is an effective way to curb Big Pharma’s dominance. The real question now is whether voters are ready to demand that lawmakers finally confront the industry’s influence-peddling and the outsized profits it protects at the public’s expense.

Chris Shays served as a Republican U.S. congressman from Connecticut from 1987-2009. Known as a moderate and for his bipartisan work, he served in key committees with oversight of finance, homeland security and government reform.