Pharmacists stockpile most common drugs on chance of targeted Trump tariffs
Independent pharmacist Benjamin Jolley and his colleagues worry that the tariffs, aimed at bringing drug production to the United States, could instead drive companies out of business while raising prices and creating more of the drug shortages that have plagued American patients for several years.
Jolley bought six months' worth of the most expensive large bottles, hoping to shield his business from the 10% across-the-board tariffs on imported goods that President Donald Trump announced April 2. Now with threats of additional tariffs targeting pharmaceuticals, Jolley worries that costs will soar for the medications that will fill those bottles.
In principle, Jolley said, using tariffs to push manufacturing from China and India to the U.S. makes sense. In the event of war, China could quickly stop all exports to the United States.
"I understand the rationale for tariffs. I'm not sure that we're gonna do it the right way," Jolley said. "And I am definitely sure that it's going to raise the price that I pay my suppliers."
Squeezed by insurers and middlemen, independent pharmacists such as Jolley find themselves on the front lines of a tariff storm. Nearly everyone down the line - drugmakers, pharmacies, wholesalers, and middlemen - opposes most tariffs.
Slashing drug imports could trigger widespread shortages, experts said, because of America's dependence on Chinese- and Indian-made chemical ingredients, which form the critical building blocks of many medicines. Industry officials caution that steep tariffs on raw materials and finished pharmaceuticals could make drugs more expensive.
"Big ships don't change course overnight," said Robin Feldman, a UC Law San Francisco professor who writes about prescription drug issues. "Even if companies pledge to bring manufacturing home, it will take time to get them up and running. The key will be to avoid damage to industry and pain to consumers in the process."
Trump on April 8 said he would soon announce "a major tariff on pharmaceuticals," which have been largely tariff-free in the U.S. for 30 years.
"When they hear that, they will leave China," he said. The U.S. imported $213 billion worth of medicines in 2024 - from China but also India, Europe, and other areas.
Trump's statement sent drugmakers scrambling to figure out whether he was serious, and whether some tariffs would be levied more narrowly, since many parts of the U.S. drug supply chain are fragile, drug shortages are common, and upheaval at the FDA leaves questions about whether its staffing is adequate to inspect factories, where quality problems can lead to supply chain crises.
On May 12, Trump signed an executive order asking drugmakers to bring down the prices Americans pay for prescriptions, to put them in line with prices in other countries.
Meanwhile, pharmacists predict even the 10% tariffs Trump has demanded will hurt: Jolley said a potential increase of up to 30 cents a vial is not a king's ransom, but it adds up when you're a small pharmacy that fills 50,000 prescriptions a year.
"The one word that I would say right now to describe tariffs is 'uncertainty,'" said Scott Pace, a pharmacist and owner of Kavanaugh Pharmacy in Little Rock, Arkansas.
To weather price fluctuations, Pace stocked up on the drugs his pharmacy dispenses most.
"I've identified the top 200 generics in my store, and I have basically put 90 days' worth of those on the shelf just as a starting point," he said. "Those are the diabetes drugs, the blood pressure medicines, the antibiotics - those things that I know folks will be sicker without."
Pace said tariffs could be the death knell for the many independent pharmacies that exist on "razor-thin margins" - unless reimbursements rise to keep up with higher costs.
Unlike other retailers, pharmacies can't pass along such costs to patients. Their payments are set by health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers largely owned by insurance conglomerates, who act as middlemen between drug manufacturers and purchasers.
Neal Smoller, who employs 15 people at his Village Apothecary in Woodstock, New York, is not optimistic.
"It's not like they're gonna go back and say, well, here's your 10% bump because of the 10% tariff," he said. "Costs are gonna go up and then the sluggish responses from the PBMs - they're going to lead us to lose more money at a faster rate than we already are."
Smoller, who said he has built a niche selling vitamins and supplements, fears that FDA firings will mean fewer federal inspections and safety checks.
"I worry that our pharmaceutical industry becomes like our supplement industry, where it's the wild West," he said.
Narrowly focused tariffs might work in some cases, said Marta Wosińska, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center on Health Policy. For example, while drug manufacturing plants can cost $1 billion and take three to five years to set up, it would be relatively cheap to build a syringe factory - a business American manufacturers abandoned during the covid-19 pandemic because China was dumping its products here, Wosińska said.
It's not surprising that giants such as Novartis and Eli Lilly have promised Trump they'll invest billions in U.S. plants, she said, since much of their final drug product is made here or in Europe, where governments negotiate drug prices. The industry is using Trump's tariff saber-rattling as leverage; in an April 11 letter, 32 drug companies demanded European governments pay them more or face an exodus to the United States.
Brandon Daniels, CEO of supply chain company Exiger, is bullish on tariffs. He thinks they could help bring some chemical manufacturing back to the U.S., which, when coupled with increased use of automation, would reduce the labor advantages of China and India.
"You've got real estate in North Texas that's cheaper than real estate in Shenzhen," he said at an economic conference April 25 in Washington, referring to a major Chinese chemical manufacturing center.
But Wosińska said no amount of tariffs will compel makers of generic drugs, responsible for 90% of U.S. prescriptions, to build new factories in the U.S. Payment structures and competition would make it economic suicide, she said.
Several U.S. generics firms have declared bankruptcy or closed U.S. factories over the past decade, said John Murphy, CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, the generics trade group. Reversing that trend won't be easy and tariffs won't do it, he said.
"There's not a magic level of tariffs that magically incentivizes them to come into the U.S.," he said. "There is no room to make a billion-dollar investment in a domestic facility if you're going to lose money on every dose you sell in the U.S. market."
His group has tried to explain these complexities to Trump officials, and hopes word is getting through. "We're not PhRMA," Murphy said, referring to the powerful trade group primarily representing makers of brand-name drugs. "I don't have the resources to go to Mar-a-Lago to talk to the president myself."
Many of the active ingredients in American drugs are imported. Fresenius Kabi, a German company with facilities in eight U.S. states to produce or distribute sterile injectables - vital hospital drugs for cancer and other conditions - complained in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that tariffs on these raw materials could paradoxically lead some companies to move finished product manufacturing overseas.
Fresenius Kabi also makes biosimilars, the generic forms of expensive biologic drugs such as Humira and Stelara. The United States is typically the last developed country where biosimilars appear on the market because of patent laws.
Tariffs on biosimilars coming from overseas - where Fresenius makes such drugs - would further incentivize U.S. use of more expensive brand-name biologics, the March 11 letter said. Biosimilars, which can cost a tenth of the original drug's price, launch on average 3-4 years later in the U.S. than in Canada or Europe.
In addition to getting cheaper knockoff drugs faster, European countries also pay far less than the United States for brand-name products. Paradoxically, Murphy said, those same countries pay more for generics.
European governments tend to establish more stable contracts with makers of generics, while in the United States, "rabid competition" drives down prices to the point at which a manufacturer "maybe scrimps on product quality," said John Barkett, a White House Domestic Policy Council member in the Biden administration.
As a result, Wosińska said, "without exemptions or other measures put in place, I really worry about tariffs causing drug shortages."
Smoller, the New York pharmacist, doesn't see any upside to tariffs.
"How do I solve the problem of caring for my community," he said, "but not being subject to the emotional roller coaster that is dispensing hundreds of prescriptions a day and watching every single one of them be a loss or 12 cents profit?"
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Old Trump speech falsely linked to South Korea trade deal
Social media posts have recirculated an old video of US President Donald Trump and falsely presented it as depicting him calling South Korean leader Lee Jae Myung a "bad negotiator" after their countries agreed a trade deal. The clip in fact shows Trump criticising then president Barack Obama as he launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. "Trump mocks Lee Jae Myung as a bad negotiator," reads a Korean-language post featuring the clip on Naver Band, a South Korean forum, on July 31, 2025. "[Trump] mocked Lee as soon as the tariff negotiations finished. [Lee] has become a total pushover," it continues. The video shows Trump saying, "The people negotiating don't have a clue. Our president doesn't have a clue. He's a bad negotiator." But its Korean subtitles mistranslate "our president" as "their president". The clip was also shared in similar posts on multiple right-wing South Korean circles on Facebook, as well as on YouTube. "The way that fool Lee acted as he did, no wonder he is being mocked," read a comment on one of the posts. Another said: "An international embarrassment to be used like that, then mocked by the US president." Under the trade deal, the United States will impose a 15 percent tariff on South Korean imports -- down from the previously threatened 25 percent -- in exchange for $350 billion in South Korean investments in US industries and $100 billion in energy purchases (archived link). A keyword search on Google found the clip corresponds to a part of a speech Trump gave on June 16, 2015, when he announced his bid for the presidency (archived link). At around the 18:50 mark of the speech posted in full by CSPAN, Trump makes the comment: "The people negotiating don't have a clue. Our president doesn't have a clue. He's a bad negotiator." This was part of a broader tirade against the Obama administration's trade and foreign policies. Trump then references a prisoner swap involving US soldier Bowe Bergdahl to illustrate his criticism of Obama's negotiating skills. Bergdahl was a US Army sergeant who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 after walking off his post in Afghanistan and was released in 2014 in exchange for five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo Bay (archived link). "We get Bergdahl. We get a traitor. We get a no-good traitor, and they get the five people that they wanted for years, and those people are now back on the battlefield trying to kill us. That's the negotiator we have," Trump said. A full transcript of the speech published by Time magazine also shows Trump was referring to Obama (archived link). Nowhere in the video or transcript does Trump mention South Korea or Lee Jae Myung. AFP has previously debunked similar instances of Trump remarks and social media posts being misrepresented as references to South Korea.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Those who invested in Fiamma Holdings Berhad (KLSE:FIAMMA) five years ago are up 134%
The worst result, after buying shares in a company (assuming no leverage), would be if you lose all the money you put in. But when you pick a company that is really flourishing, you can make more than 100%. For example, the Fiamma Holdings Berhad (KLSE:FIAMMA) share price has soared 112% in the last half decade. Most would be very happy with that. With that in mind, it's worth seeing if the company's underlying fundamentals have been the driver of long term performance, or if there are some discrepancies. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. There is no denying that markets are sometimes efficient, but prices do not always reflect underlying business performance. One flawed but reasonable way to assess how sentiment around a company has changed is to compare the earnings per share (EPS) with the share price. Over half a decade, Fiamma Holdings Berhad managed to grow its earnings per share at 15% a year. This EPS growth is reasonably close to the 16% average annual increase in the share price. That suggests that the market sentiment around the company hasn't changed much over that time. Rather, the share price has approximately tracked EPS growth. The company's earnings per share (over time) is depicted in the image below (click to see the exact numbers). We're pleased to report that the CEO is remunerated more modestly than most CEOs at similarly capitalized companies. But while CEO remuneration is always worth checking, the really important question is whether the company can grow earnings going forward. Dive deeper into the earnings by checking this interactive graph of Fiamma Holdings Berhad's earnings, revenue and cash flow. What About The Total Shareholder Return (TSR)? We've already covered Fiamma Holdings Berhad's share price action, but we should also mention its total shareholder return (TSR). The TSR is a return calculation that accounts for the value of cash dividends (assuming that any dividend received was reinvested) and the calculated value of any discounted capital raisings and spin-offs. Fiamma Holdings Berhad's TSR of 134% for the 5 years exceeded its share price return, because it has paid dividends. A Different Perspective While it's never nice to take a loss, Fiamma Holdings Berhad shareholders can take comfort that their trailing twelve month loss of 3.6% wasn't as bad as the market loss of around 6.1%. Longer term investors wouldn't be so upset, since they would have made 19%, each year, over five years. It could be that the business is just facing some short term problems, but shareholders should keep a close eye on the fundamentals. Before forming an opinion on Fiamma Holdings Berhad you might want to consider these 3 valuation metrics. If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: many of them are unnoticed AND have attractive valuation). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Malaysian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio


USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
Senate confirms Trump's pick to oversee higher ed, a man tied to for-profit colleges
The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's pick to oversee higher education policy, a man with deep ties to the for-profit college industry, by a 50-to-45 vote on August 1. Senate Majority John Thune filed cloture on Kent's nomination earlier in the week. And the education committee had already advanced Kent on a 12-11 vote without a hearing in late May. The undersecretary at the Department of Education oversees billions in federal financial aid and is charged with ensuring America's colleges provide a quality education. Education Secretary Linda McMahon had previously told USA TODAY that Kent is a 'natural leader' whose experience and concern for students 'make him the ideal selection for under secretary of education." He had won the support of several prominent university trade groups who are opposed to Trump's attacks on universities, but said they supported Kent's nomination. His confirmation comes as the Trump administration seeks to reshape higher education and has launched numerous investigations into high profile universities. Kent had already been working at the agency on the administration's initiatives like K-12 school choice. But prior to working in the government, Kent had a long history working for or close to for-profit colleges. From 2008 to the end of 2015, Kent worked for Education Affiliates, a for-profit college company. When he left, he was a vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs. In 2015, the Department of Justice announced the company had agreed to a $13 million settlement to settle accusations it had gamed the federal financial aid system. The company told USA TODAY Kent was not involved in the settlement or the allegations of fraud. Critics, including student advocacy groups and teacher unions, had called on the Senate education committee to put Kent through a public hearing to answer questions about his time working for the company. And one of the original whistleblowers tied to that case, Dorothy Thomas, expressed concern about someone from the company's leadership holding the under secretary position. Kent had also worked for Career Education Colleges and Universities, a for-profit college trade group. He developed a reputation for deep policy knowledge while speaking against regulations geared toward the for-profit college industry. That group's CEO, Jason Altmire, said Kent was not driven by partisan politics and would bring an unbiased view to the under secretary position. He then went to work for Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration as a deputy secretary of education. Youngkin, in a prepared statement, said Kent improved how Virginia manages colleges and made them more accountable to students and families through increased transparency. Chair of the Virginia Senate's education committee, Democrat Ghazala Hashmi, told USA TODAY Kent had tried to destabilize accreditation in the state and he was aligned with efforts to dismantle consumer protections. In a departing message to the commonwealth, Kent said he was proud of reducing costs while pushing for free speech and accountability at Virginia's colleges. Chris Quintana is an investigative reporter at USA TODAY. He can be reached at cquintana@ or via Signal at 202-308-9021. He is on X at @CQuintanaDC