ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Announces Most Favored Nation Pharmaceutical Policy

fatpiggy said:
Short version, the US will pay the rate equal to the lowest price charged to another nation.

Should be a bi-partisan issue.

It is amazing how much work this dude gets done. Holy shit.


View embedded media
Click to expand...
If it's real, it's a good thing but when he tried it before, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration bypassed proper regulatory procedures (e.g., public comment periods) and industry groups filed lawsuits, which resulted in it not being implemented. Also, executive orders lack teeth without legislative action so let's not put the cart before the horse because he announced something that sounds good.

Also, say goodbye to future drugs since he's de-funding R&D and firing our best scientists right and left.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: flotiger and hinds62
dpic73 said:
If it's real, it's a good thing but when he tried it before, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration bypassed proper regulatory procedures (e.g., public comment periods) and industry groups filed lawsuits, which resulted in it not being implemented. Also, executive orders lack teeth without legislative action so let's not put the cart before the horse because he announced something that sounds good.

Also, say goodbye to future drugs since he's de-funding R&D and firing our best scientists right and left.
Click to expand...
We knew democrats would find the negative.

They just can’t give credit when it’s due.

Should be a bipartisan issue.

Nothing is going to be de-funded.

What will happen is the rest of the world will pay more for their drugs and we will pay less.

Democrats will say that is a bad thing because ….. it benefits Americans.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: DW4_2016, PalmettoTiger1, Allornothing and 3 others
fatpiggy said:
We knew democrats would find the negative.

They just can’t give credit when it’s due.

Should be a bipartisan issue.

Nothing is going to be de-funded.

What will happen is the rest of the world will pay more for their drugs and we will pay less.

Democrats will say that is a bad thing because ….. it benefits Americans.
Click to expand...
dpic73 said:
If it's real, it's a good thing
Click to expand...

Dude, plenty has been de-funded, where have you been? Click the link for more details : https://x.com/i/grok/share/hcMO1jzqEzGVnqfzVIgYQBE7R

The Trump administration has de-funded a wide range of medical research programs through a 15% cap on NIH indirect costs ($4 billion annual cut), termination of ~800 grants ($2.3 billion in 100 days), and proposed 40% budget reductions for 2026. Affected areas include cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, infectious diseases, heart disease, and minority health, with disruptions to clinical trials, jobs, and infrastructure. While some cuts target DEI or vaccine research, the impact is far broader, risking U.S. scientific leadership and patient outcomes. Legal blocks and congressional resistance may limit the damage, but ongoing bureaucratic delays and staffing cuts exacerbate the crisis. For the latest developments or specific program details, I can search further or analyze related policies (e.g., RFK Jr.’s influence).
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: flotiger, DW4_2016 and yoshi121374
fatpiggy said:
We knew democrats would find the negative.

They just can’t give credit when it’s due.

Should be a bipartisan issue.

Nothing is going to be de-funded.

What will happen is the rest of the world will pay more for their drugs and we will pay less.

Democrats will say that is a bad thing because ….. it benefits Americans.
Click to expand...
Conclusion
The Trump administration in 2025 has likely fired or affected ~7,900–13,200 scientists, with a midpoint estimate of ~10,000, across agencies like NIH, EPA, NOAA, and USDA, plus 400 non-federal NCA contributors. After accounting for reinstatements and judicial interventions, the permanent number may be closer to 5,000–8,000. These figures are approximate due to limited agency transparency and varying definitions of “scientist.” The firings, part of a broader workforce reduction aligned with Project 2025, target probationary employees and fields like climate and biomedical research, raising concerns about U.S. scientific leadership. For precise updates or specific agency breakdowns, I can search further or monitor developments if requested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flotiger
An interesting issue.

The devil will be in the details trying to administer it.

I think the overall concept it good. Lower drug prices should get pretty widespread support.

I wonder how you avoid the US only drug releases. Similar to what Walmart , Costco others do with TV's.

I would suspect you'll other nations will do they same thing with US drugs. Seems fair.

The issue is it is easier for 100 countries to implement the rules against 1 country , than 1 country to administer for 100 countries.

All for it , but lots of devils in the details. Pharma is big money so I suspect you see significant push back. If we get 30 to 50% of the reduction it is still a win. Interested to see how it affect insurance prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls and yoshi121374
ben_matt_ward said:
An interesting issue.

The devil will be in the details trying to administer it.

I think the overall concept it good. Lower drug prices should get pretty widespread support.

I wonder how you avoid the US only drug releases. Similar to what Walmart , Costco others do with TV's.

I would suspect you'll other nations will do they same thing with US drugs. Seems fair.

The issue is it is easier for 100 countries to implement the rules against 1 country , than 1 country to administer for 100 countries.

All for it , but lots of devils in the details. Pharma is big money so I suspect you see significant push back. If we get 30 to 50% of the reduction it is still a win. Interested to see how it affect insurance prices.
Click to expand...

What details are you missing? It seems fairly simple.

What is the lowest price you sell this medicine at to another country? That is the price you will charge in the US.

Not sure what more are needed?

Economically, this would lower prices for Americans, while raising prices for the rest of the world.

If another country has some super drug that they invent and we need then maybe we work out a deal with them.

But Trump was right. We research and develop all these drugs and then we pay the highest price for them? Doesn't seem like a good deal for Americans.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TigerGrowls, DW4_2016 and PalmettoTiger1
Like I stated:

"All for it , but lots of devils in the details."

If we don't think their is a ton of details in the order , I think we are missing what it will take to enact and enforce.

I am all for cheaper drug prices, but their is a lot of work to do to achieve these results.
A noble effort we'll see how it goes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls, fatpiggy and yoshi121374
It is truly Amazing that what should be a clear win for the American people is disparaged because TRUMP is doing it

You TDS folks really need HELP
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
We also need to mention that this is essentially like a tax cut for the American People. Money straight into their pockets that they can spend on other necessities.

Couple this with lower gas prices and this is a real shot in the arm for the economy and inflation reduction.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls, yoshi121374 and DW4_2016
For every 10% reduction in drug prices there will be a decrease in CPI of .13 basis points.

a 30% reduction would result in almost .50 basis point reduction in CPI. It will obviously take a few readings to accurately reflect.

CPI drug prices are 1.35% of the CPI calculation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
If this does go through, seems awesome and for sure a win. Good job on their end for pushing this through.

It is a bit surprising tho as this is an anti-free market approach right? Is it just because it's "pharma=bad" that traditional free-market people would be in support of this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
wrw311 said:
If this does go through, seems awesome and for sure a win. Good job on their end for pushing this through.

It is a bit surprising tho as this is an anti-free market approach right? Is it just because it's "pharma=bad" that traditional free-market people would be in support of this?
Click to expand...
This is a great observation and fair point and a criticism i saw coming.

Tariffs are also anti-free trade, but they are a tool to get us to free trade. A tool to get us to a level playing field.

Is a level playing field having drugs cost $88 dollars in the UK while costing $1300 here? Is that the free market speakin OR is the market already distorted and Trump is trying to get us to an even playing field?

This is an interesting topic, thanks for brining it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
fatpiggy said:
This is a great observation and fair point and a criticism i saw coming.

Tariffs are also anti-free trade, but they are a tool to get us to free trade. A tool to get us to a level playing field.

Is a level playing field having drugs cost $88 dollars in the UK while costing $1300 here? Is that the free market speakin OR is the market already distorted and Trump is trying to get us to an even playing field?

This is an interesting topic, thanks for brining it up.
Click to expand...
I have 90yr old parents. The amount that they save by getting generics via Canada is mind blowing. My wife heard in passing what they were paying for prescritptions and helped get them hooked up, otherwise they'd still be paying the exorbitant amount.
 
I wonder what Canada/UK have that allows their prescription prices to be so much lower than the US. Would be really neat if the US could do the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
It would be really neat if we had to wait 6 months to see a doctor when we have 3 months to live. We should definitely model ourselves after socialized medicine.
WapPride said:
I wonder what Canada/UK have that allows their prescription prices to be so much lower than the US. Would be really neat if the US could do the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ANEW
Remember the Canada and UK have been doing socialized medicine while they mooch off the United States. They partially were able to afford those expensive programs because they weren't meeting their defense spending obligations.

Will be interesting to see if it can stand on its own now that the US won't be subsidizing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls and ANEW
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Willence

Trump and stepping on rakes

Replies
44
Views
2K
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
tboonpickens
tboonpickens
TigerGrowls

Dirty dozen? 12 jurisdictions where election issues looming ahead of November

Replies
1
Views
1K
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
dpic73
dpic73
Cris_Ard

Why this could be the most consequential election in college sports history

Replies
0
Views
1K
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
Cris_Ard
Cris_Ard
TigerGrowls

Trump Record of Achievement

Replies
3
Views
641
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls
Paul Strelow

*** Compelling story on the new player contracts rolling out ...

Replies
36
Views
4K
The West Zone
tl65
T
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back