The details in crafting this law are obviously a challenge. It is also important to remember this statement: "...traditional arguments that price controls reduce patient access to medicine and revenue for the research and development of new drugs."
These are common arguments against govt. regulation in general. What are the root issues of "patient access" (choice) and more money for research? It implies that without choice and more research, you'll either be sicker or die. It's the same "death panel" scare of government regulation we've seen before. 
What effect does the threat of being sick or dying have on a free market capitalist system? While we're told to "shop" for healthcare to bring prices down (has that worked?), there is no alternative to NOT having drugs or medical care. If you think you might die, the sky is the limit for what you'll want in terms of care, pushing prices up. 
I propose that the threat of death skews capitalism to raise prices, not lower them.