Democrats initially pushed to give HHS the power to strip intellectual property protections from any vaccine or medication whose price it deemed too high, multiple sources familiar with the negotiation told POLITICO. Versions of the legislation circulating late last week included this language. But pushback from the drug industry and Republicans prompted lawmakers to strike it.

Stephen Ubl, the head of the drug industry's main lobbying group, PhRMA, told reporters Wednesday that pharmaceutical companies won’t take the huge risks that come with drug and vaccine development if the government has the leverage to strip them of their patents over pricing disagreements. The money in the spending bill does not cover all of these risks, he added.

“If collaboration with the government even in a limited way results in a loss of intellectual property or the government setting the price, it is going to have a chilling effect on both investment and collaboration at a time when we need more of both,” Ubl said, adding he had not seen the language in the final coronavirus package.

The drug industry is “firmly committed to bringing forth affordable solutions,” he added.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement that he is glad the legislation moved forward without the “ideological strings” on drug pricing that House Democrats initially sought. “This is a moment where we need to empower and encourage our nation’s innovators,” he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office said in a statement that the bill “protects against price-gouging of these medicines developed with taxpayer dollars by ensuring that the federal government will only pay a fair and reasonable price for coronavirus vaccines and drugs and providing HHS the authority to ensure that they are affordable in the commercial market.”

But advocates for lower drug prices say that the drug industry got the better end of the deal, because the provision that bars the government from delaying a product’s development over price concerns could negate the legislative wins Pelosi touted.

The current affordability language “is worse than weak — it actually makes thing worse,” Love wrote in a blog post. He noted that the bill says only that the HHS secretary “may” take action to ensure products are affordable to the commercial market, while mandating that HHS Secretary “shall not” take actions to delay development of the products.

Now, Love wrote, companies will be able to “claim that anything that reduces the price reduces incentives to invest in more rapid development, and litigate that issue.”

A senior Democratic aide pushed back on the idea that the provision is a victory for Republicans and the drug industry. “That language is really a fig leaf for Republicans to take home to Big Pharma,” the aide said, adding that language won’t be applicable because “if there’s an actual purchase price to assess, that means that a vaccine has been successfully developed.”

But Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who with Schakowsky sought stricter affordability provisions, took aim at “the willingness of the pharmaceutical industry to advance its monopoly power no matter how serious the crisis.”

“A danger remains that the federal government will simply write a blank check signed to big pharma as a result of this crisis,” he said. “I’m pleased that the emergency funding language does refer to reasonable prices, but I would have liked it to be much stronger.”

Other drug pricing advocates characterized the bill as an incremental step in the right direction.

“That we're debating the language is a loss” for the pharmaceutical industry, said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works. “And at some point, people are going to start wondering why the federal government pays unreasonable prices on anything to pharmaceutical companies. And when that happens, that's when pharma’s whole house of cards starts falling down.”

Sarah Owermohle contributed to this report.