Veteran Affairs. They may also begin use of reference pricing, thus permitting the Department of Health and Human Services to set a benchmark price for clinically comparable drugs that are interchangeable. Though these changes may produce more cost-effective medication, a drawback may be the lack of market diversity. Rather than having one pharmaceutical company dictating the price, the federal government is dictating the price thus creating a lack of competition. Having one body dictate everything may create tensions between pharmaceutical companies and the government; thus, change might not be made at all. Next, pharmaceutical companies spend a substantial amount of money on marketing rather than research. At this point, we are unaware of the exact cost breakdown of pharmaceutical company revenue. There is no requirement for documentation to show the difference between profits, money used for marketing, and money used for research. Often times, marketing costs are categorized into research funds. By enforcing transparency, we may have better insight into the way drug prices are set and can determine whether set prices are justified. For the past 20 years, leading drug companies earned more than 70% of their sales from products they did not develop. More transparency with prices and clinical outcomes would allow physicians, patients, and payers to understand the true value of a treatment. Ultimately, transparency is about ensuring patients have access to the drugs they need, and creating a sustainable, vibrant, and innovative healthcare system for everyone. However as with our previous proposal, we took into consideration potential drawbacks to having drug pricing transparency. If we bec>