Last week, Sarah Kliff wrote an interesting piece about why prescription drug prices in America are so high compared to other industrialized countries. The international comparisons aren't new, but the conclusion that Americans have to choose between high drug prices and innovation is interesting. In a nutshell, Sarah reports that America subsidizes the world's prescription drug costs to incentivize investment in drug innovation by pharmaceutical companies and financial investors.

Sarah's article was a timely piece because also last week, the U.S. Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act. This Act's been in the making for about two years and is the largest health care reform Act since Obamacare. It is nearly 1,000 pages, with a price tag of over $6 billion. And guess what, it includes lots of stuff about health care innovation as well as reducing approval standards for Big Pharma to bring their drugs to market. And just yesterday, the Senate, with a vote of 85-13, ended debate on the bill.

You can read the entire act here (it's at least worth a quick review).

Most of the Act's provisions, which President Obama will sign in the next few days, are uncontroversial and good. The Act provides more money for drug therapy and cancer research, mental health research and care, state opioid abuse programs and more. But not everyone's happy with the Act, including prominent Democratic Senators, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Both see this bill as a handout to pharmaceutical companies because of the provisions that may allow them to bring products to the market quicker than they can currently and with less attention to drug safety and efficacy.

But even Senators like Al Franken who approved the bill, lament that it does nothing to address high prescription drug prices. And the total elimination of anything to address prescription drug prices in such a relevant and related piece of legislation is more disheartening than Sarah Kliff's high cost or innovation conclusion.

The 21st Century Cures Act could easily have been, The Pharmaceutical Innovation And Price Reduction Act. The Cures Act shows government's commitment to hiring government workers and other scientists to research cures for major diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's; so what is the problem with government competing with the private sector to produce drugs? But instead of addressing the price gouging, free-for-all of private pharmaceutical companies, the Cures Act guarantees that it will continue to happen. Not to mention, we will now use taxpayer money to try and fix the opioid problem that private pharmaceutical companies helped create. How long will it take for a less-regulated pharmaceutical industry to create the next national drug crises?

If people want some third party to subsidize the cost of their prescription drugs, that third party usually being the government and those subsidies being insurance or tax savings, then government needs to assume the role of the nation's drug innovator and seller. The government has no profit motive, already has a staff of medication reviewers (Food & Drug Administration) and has a good record of drug innovation.

We don't have to choose between high drug prices and innovation, but we can and should choose public drug innovation over private sector innovation. Eventually, we will have to make decisions to address high prescription drug prices; unfortunately, the federal government decided to delay those decisions with the 21st Century Cures Act.