Since the moment Kamala Harris announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, the entire Democrat Party/regime media machine has been united in an effort to rebrand Walz from a commie-loving, valor-stealing autocrat into everyone's lovable, huggable, camo-wearing redneck neighbor.

Most thinking people haven't swayed; Walz's policies, votes, and actions as governor are in stark contrast to the values those in rural America hold dear and actively harm people living in rural areas. Of course, since the voters in those areas are overwhelmingly Republican, Walz doesn't really care if they're harmed.

Case in point: Though Walz and Harris shout that they'll fight "Big Pharma" and lower drug costs, as Minnesota governor, Walz signed healthcare bills that hamstring rural hospitals - impacting their ability to deliver care and provide low-cost drugs - by giving them even more bureaucratic red tape to wade through.

Here's what Harris said at a campaign event on August 16 in Raleigh, NC:

As president, I’ll attack and take on the issue of the cost of health care.  As attorney general, I took on insurance companies and Big Pharma and got them to lower their prices.

And together with President Biden, we’ve gone even further...

. . .

We let Medicare negotiate lower drug prices for seniors.

And just yesterday we announced that we are lowering the price by up to 80 percent for 10 more lifesaving drugs.

And I pledge to continue this progress.  I’ll lower the cost of insulin and prescription drugs for everyone with your support, not only our seniors and demand transparency from the middlemen who operate between Big Pharma and the insurance companies, who use opaque practices to raise your drug prices and profit off your need for medicine.

In addition to other obvious false assertions within her comments, it can be argued that a Harris/Walz White House would do Big Pharma's bidding, as Walz did when he signed Big Pharma-backed legislation in May 2023 and May 2024 that has the practical effect of putting rural hospitals in an even more precarious financial position. Minnesota is one of only three states to pass this type of legislation, which institutes onerous additional reporting requirements for hospitals participating in the 340B drug discount program that's despised by Big Pharma - and assesses $500/day penalties for noncompliant providers.

If you're not familiar with the 340B program - the cost of which is borne by pharmaceutical providers, not taxpayers - and why it's important, my colleague Neil McCabe wrote a succinct explanation:

Congress created the 340B program as part of the 1992 Veterans Health Care Act as a very simple idea. Through the program, pharmaceutical companies participating in Medicaid are required to enter purchase price agreements with the Health and Human Services Department, which cap the price drug manufacturers can charge federally-approved healthcare facilities. 

These facilities can then charge a patient’s insurance a reduced price for the medication, or, which is more common, the facilities charge the patient’s insurance the regular retail price. 

These facilities, typically clinics and small hospitals serving rural communities, pocket the difference in the price, in effect supporting the facilities at no cost to the patients. 

To qualify for the program, the facilities have to be a disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, serving a higher percentage of economically challenged patients than mainstream facilities. They must also be either government-operated or not-for-profit. 

Obviously, the 340B program is despised by the drug manufacturers, and they are pushing laws and regulations that will curtain or shutter participation.

One way Big Pharma's trying to kill the program is by pushing crushing bureaucratic regulations like those in the bills Walz signed. The manufacturers believe that the providers should in every instance pass the savings along to the patient, but, as Neil explained, if the patient has insurance they charge insurance the regular price and pocket the difference to fund other programs or simply keep their doors open. Some providers have expanded their oncology programs, which is a huge benefit to mostly elderly patients on fixed incomes who would otherwise have to travel long distances for cancer treatment. Others have introduced community dental programs, which nobody will argue is a bad thing. We know more than ever about the link between dental health and other medical issues, and many Americans don't have dental insurance, period. 

The bill Walz signed in May 2023 requires 340B covered entities to publicly report detailed financial information, including their total 340B acquisition costs and payments. These hospitals are either government-run or not-for-profit and participate in Medicare/Medicaid so it's safe to say they already comply with extremely detailed financial reporting requirements.

Then in 2024, Walz signed a separate bill requiring an additional report from state 340B providers, this one reporting expenses for 340B program administration and payments made to any non-pharmacy entities. This bill levies a $500 daily fine on entities that don't comply. For extremely small facilities with 10, 20, or 30 beds and a small staff, this is extremely burdensome from both a staff utilization standpoint and a technology cost standpoint. And who pays for that? The rural, conservative voters who will have less provider availability and who might see their community hospital close down completely.