House and Senate leaders have run into last-minute snags on a $7.5 billion emergency package to combat the U.S. spread of coronavirus, including disputes over vaccine availability and hospital reimbursement costs.

Top Democrats say the House is still expected to vote on the package Wednesday, with the Senate likely to follow suit as soon as Thursday. But the timeline for unveiling that legislation has slipped, possibly as late as Wednesday morning, amid policy fights between the two parties.


With the number of U.S. cases steadily rising, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to find a deal that could pass both chambers this week, doling out money quickly to state and local health departments.

The biggest issue, according to several people familiar with negotiations, involves a Democratic attempt to control the costs of vaccines and other treatments that are developed in response to the outbreak. Other issues include details of hospital reimbursement for uninsured patients and whether to pay for a provision to help expand telemedicine, which would cost roughly $500 million.

“Vaccines should be affordable. It’s just as simple as that,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), a top appropriator, said as she left a Democratic leadership meeting on Tuesday night.

“It’s going back and forth. That’s where we are,” DeLauro added. “There are no firm answers at the moment, but we’re moving toward getting this done and getting it done this week because the need is so critical. We have to get it done this week.”


Pelosi and her top deputies briefed their fellow Democrats on the status of the emergency funding package on Tuesday night and outlined the remaining issues. A final deal could still be reached Tuesday night, they said, but could take until Wednesday morning.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had complained earlier Tuesday that Republican lawmakers were resisting Democratic efforts to stave off potential price-gauging of vaccines or other products.

“Our Republican friends don't want to see the kinds of limitations that we want to see," Schumer said after a briefing with members of the White House’s coronavirus task force, including Vice President Mike Pence and HHS Secretary Alex Azar.

The 11th hour policy battles come after both parties had intended to present a united front against the potential epidemic, with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California each touting positive conversations with each other about the package as recently as Tuesday. Republicans and Democrats both stressed that the response to the virus should avoid mudslinging and fingerpointing.


Still, some of the final details of the massive funding package have come down to partisan talking points.

Democrats are insisting the spending package include significant funding to purchase large amounts of coronavirus diagnostics, treatments and vaccine, when it becomes available, which would then be made available to the public free of cost, according to a senior Democratic aide.

The Democratic aide said Republicans are trying to eliminate the “fair and reasonable price” federal procurement standard for the vaccines and treatments that will be developed and purchased with the emergency funds. “Fair and reasonable price” is a basic standard to prevent price gouging in federal contracts.

Republicans, however, argue they are trying to fight Democratic efforts to create a new set of price controls and that they are not asking for changes to the underlying procurement standards.

The administration's top scientists have said any coronavirus vaccine could be at least a year away from reaching the market. Moderna Therapeutics is working with National Institutes of Health on a vaccine while Johnson & Johnson has received funding from HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

The bill would provide funding for masks, ventilators, community preparations and vaccine development, Schumer said. But it's silent on how much vaccines developed with the government's backing should cost.

“We are not going to say the companies after we taxpayers have paid for it, ‘now go out and make a huge profit.’ That's not going to happen,” said Senate Appropriations ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

Congressional leaders still plan to pass an emergency package by the end of this week, with funding levels much closer to the $8.5 billion Democrats suggested than the Trump administration's $2.5 billion request.


Both House and Senate leaders have stepped into overdrive as the global coronavirus outbreak poses a rising threat to the U.S., with 122 cases of the virus now reported.

Lawmakers have also dramatically stepped up their oversight of the Trump administration's response, which had drawn flak in the early days of the outbreak, with its mixed messaging and a slow rollout of tests as cases accumuluate.

Senate Democrats on Tuesday confronted Pence over the federal government’s response to the outbreak, even as leaders of both parties have quietly urged lawmakers to present a united front.

Multiple Democrats said Pence and the task force did not have enough answers on testing kits, costs of care and what will happen to people who do not have insurance.

Lawmakers including Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington, where nine deaths have been confirmed, challenged Pence during the hourlong meeting, which became contentious at times, according to attendees.

POLITICO Pulse The latest news in health care politics and policy. Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. {{#success}} {{message}} {{message}} More Subscriptions {{message}}

“The failure to develop and distribute working test kits to public health agencies has really cost us valuable time,” Murray said afterward. “I’m hearing from people personally across our state who are frustrated. They believe they have been exposed, they are sick, they want to get tested — but they have nowhere to go.”

Roughly $900 million in the bill would go toward purchasing equipment including masks and ventilators. Murray said that officials told senators they had stockpiled masks, but that there were not enough.

Separately, health insurers want assurances the government will help pay the cost of widespread testing or expensive treatment.


“There’s not enough test kits. We don’t know how wide it is. And it’s because the president dropped the ball early,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

Meanwhile, at the Senate Republican lunch, one attendee said senators suggested to Pence that the administration’s medical experts be the “point people” for the federal response.

“No real pushback other than the recommendation that they just use people that are not politically appointed, real professionals in the area that way there can't be argument — oh, this is just political spin, it’s coming from doctors,” the attendee said.

Pence, who President Donald Trump designated the lead on the virus response last week, made the rounds as the Trump administration tried to move past a raucous few days of partisan finger-pointing.

Earlier on Tuesday, Pence hosted a group of House members who belong to the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in the White House situation room. His message, according to several attendees, was to avoid political bickering as the U.S. grapples with a health crisis with a scale that remains unknown.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) laid out concerns with the administration’s outreach, including mixed messaging from Trump himself and various health agencies, according to multiple people in the room.

Murphy, whose home city of Orlando includes Disney World, pressed Pence on which source of information should be trusted. Pence instructed her to refer to the CDC’s website.

Another Democrat, Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, challenged information the administration has presented about the risk of transmission. He later said he urged the administration to be as transparent and “as conservative” as possible.


Sarah Karlin-Smith, Caitlin Emma, Andrew Desiderio, Marianne LeVine and Susannah Luthi contributed to this report.

