The Health Law and Policy Program hosted a symposium titled A Preliminary Assessment of the Inflation Reduction Act’s Drug Price Provisions at the George Washington University Law School on October 10, 2025.
The symposium served as both an examination of the early implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act’s drug pricing provisions and a celebration of the anniversary of Medicare Part D. Leading scholars, policymakers, and practitioners came together at GW Law to discuss the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) on drug pricing, Medicare policy, and the broader U.S. healthcare system. The symposium featured four panels, each examining the IRA from a distinct perspective.
Panel 1: An Assessment of the Inflation Reduction Act’s First Year
In the opening panel, participants revisited the key drug price provisions of the IRA and considered how they represent a way forward for drug pricing reform in the United States. Panelists engaged in a conversation about both the positive and negative developments observed during the first year of the IRA’s implementation. They also explored other reforms that can be pursued to address the remaining gaps, as well as opportunities for continued research to track the impacts of the IRA, its application to markets outside of Medicare, and key markers of success over the next few years.
Gregory Daniel, Vice President and Head of Policy Innovation, Evidence & Engagement at Eli Lilly and Company, provided thoughts on Part D redesign as a well-supported and necessary provision in the IRA. Daniel criticized the negotiation program, highlighting early indications of unintended consequences in the industry.
Professor Rachel Sachs of Washington University in St. Louis discussed the different provisions and reforms included in the IRA and its implementation timeline from 2023 to 2029. Professor Sachs also provided some framing thoughts on the varied decision-making roles of different government branches in building the program, and how the pieces of the program are designed to build on one another.
And Conor Sheehey, Director of Leavitt Partners, shared the early considerations among Congress during the passage and initial implementation of the IRA, and how the politics surrounding the law have evolved during implementation under the Trump administration.
Professor Mariana Socal of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health monitored the discussion.
Panel 2: A Look at the IRA’s Most Urgent Questions
This panel explored pressing questions surrounding the IRA’s drug pricing framework, including the impact on patients, the role of evidence and stakeholder feedback in program design, the lack of specificity in how Medicare plans should cover negotiated drugs, the challenge of implementing overlapping policies such as 340B and Maximum Fair Price, and the impact of research and innovation. The panel also briefly explored the lawsuits and the grounds on which the IRA has been challenged.
Sabrina Aery, Advisory Consultant, formerly Bristol Myers Squibb, discussed key issues and challenges that emerge when pharmaceutical manufacturers implement components of the IRA under tight timelines.
Professor Mark Pauly of The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania spoke about the impact of price negotiations on patient access to drugs and patient cost-sharing.
Merith Basey of Patients for Affordable Drugs discussed the role of patients in advocating for the passage of the IRA and in challenging lawsuits against the IRA. Basey also shared information on how the law has benefited patients by lowering the price of prescription drugs and improving access to medications.
Peter Mucchetti, Partner and Co-Head of the Technology, Media & Telecommunications Sector at Clifford Chance, moderated the panel.
Panel 3: A Step Back to Determine What We Want to Achieve
The third panel examined the broader goals of the IRA’s drug price provisions. Panelists reflected on the patient perspective, noting that while some markets function adequately for generic drugs, others remain out of reach for many people. The discussion acknowledged systemic flaws and considered policy interventions and tools introduced by the IRA.
Professor Richard Frank, Director of the Center on Health Policy at The Brookings Institution and Professor of Health Economics at Harvard Medical School, discussed historical trends in various drug policy reforms and the ensuing concerns raised from industry, such as threats to innovation and drug development, and how overtime policy found a way to account for bonafide issues. Professor Frank emphasized that this moment is similar, with the IRA being a response to both current market and regulatory failures. Future solutions will have to account for current legislative failures.
Sarah Emond, President and Chief Executive Officer at the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, spoke on the sustainability of the health insurance system, emphasizing that premium increases cannot continue at the current pace and discussing possible solutions.
John O’Brien, President and Chief Executive Officer at the National Pharmaceutical Council, spoke about the incentives and risks that contribute to the current affordability crisis. O'Brien shared the motivations behind the IRA, which were to actually translate the benefits of drug negotiations to patients.
Noam Levey, senior correspondent at KFF Health News, moderated the panel.
Panel 4: What Should Our Future Priorities Be for Medicare?
The final panel focused on the future, considering how the IRA’s drug pricing reforms might shape the next phase of Medicare policy. Panelists highlighted that the current health care system is failing by not providing the value to consumers and transparency it should, including as one example, the investment in and utility of drug development within drug markets. Panelists also shared their opinions on the health systems fundamental flaw and how they would redesign.
Lance Piecoro, Senior Vice President of Market Access at Exelixis U.S., Inc., shared his perspective from a small to mid-size biotechnology company and the challenges manufacturers have with planning ahead based on the way IRA has been written and implemented.
Gregg Girvan, resident fellow at The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, noted that the U.S. healthcare system does not deliver good value for what is spent. This brings into question the utility of the current innovation coming from the system, and whether we might get more effective and valuable innovation for cheaper. Girvan also noted that the IRA’s selection process for drugs in the negotiation program does not fully capture potential savings.
Professor Arti Rai, of the Duke University School of Law, talked about the impact of the IRA on drug patents and the realities of more robust patent reform as a solution for some of the remaining challenges seen with the law. Professor Rai also talked about the new difficulty of predicting when biosimilar competition will occur and the risk of the drug negotiation program negatively impacting the emergence of said competition.
Andrea Ducas, Vice President of Programs at the Peterson Center on Healthcare, discussed opportunities for building sustainability within the Medicare program, including options for reform to Medicare Advantage, changing benefit designs, and reshaping power and transparency dynamics within health care arrangements.
GW Law Professor Michael Abramowicz moderated the panel.