this is an outdated text: switch to the updated & improved dc code website
home, about

The DC Code: § 28-4551 Findings.

Index28 Commercial Instruments and Transactions. (Refs & Annos)

The Council of the District of Columbia finds that:

1
The excessive prices of prescription drugs in the District of Columbia is threatening the health and welfare of the residents of the District as well as the District government's ability to ensure that all residents receive the health care they need, and these excessive prices directly and indirectly cause economic harm to the District and damage the health and safety of its residents;
2
The traditional police powers of the District of Columbia include protecting and promoting the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, regulating monopoly pricing of goods and services, and regulating to assure consumer protection and to prevent and sanction unfair trade practices; and
3
To promote the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, it is incumbent on the government of the District of Columbia to take action to restrain the excessive prices of prescription drugs through mechanisms that are consistent with District and federal law, including the Constitution.

Historical and Statutory

Legislative History of Laws Law 16-37, the "Prescription Drug Excessive Pricing Act of 2005", was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 16-114 which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on May 3, 2005, and July 6, 2005, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on October 4, 2005, it was assigned Act No. 16-171 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 16-37 became effective on December 10, 2005. DC CODE § 28-4551 Current through December 11, 2012

Credits

(Dec. 10, 2005, D.C. Law 16-37, § 2, 52 DCR 9061.) GENERAL NOTES This chapter has been held unconstitutional in the case of Pharmaceutical Research and Mfrs. of America v. District of Columbia, 2005, 406 F.Supp.2d 56, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1822, affirmed 496 F.3d 1362, 83 U.S.P.Q.2d 1639, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied 505 F.3d 1343, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1144.