
Trump plans to lower prescription drug costs
"The president thinks of pharmaceutical price differences between countries the same way he thinks of our trade imbalances with other countries," said John Barkett, managing director at the management consulting firm BRG and a former senior policy advisor in the Biden White House. "If we pay more than other countries, then he thinks we're getting ripped off."
How will the order lower drug prices?
The United States trade representative and the Department of Commerce have 30 days to give drugmakers price targets "to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations," the order said.
If they don't make significant progress toward those goals within six months, drugmakers could face actions from several federal agencies. The requested drug discounts could range for 59% to 80% from list prices.
Trump said other wealthy nations should pay more for prescription drugs. He called his executive order, which aims to charge Americans less and other nations more, "equalization."
If drugmakers that don't cut prices, the order directs Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Health and Human Services Department to draft federal rules to impose prices in line with other developed nations.
Trump's enforcement tool would come from federal regulators. Drug companies that fail to meet price targets could be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for anti-competitive practices or face Food and Drug Administration reviews to "potentially modify or revoke" approvals of drugs found to be "unsafe, ineffective or improperly marketed."
The order also resurfaces an idea from the Trump administration's first term that achieved little uptake - importing less expensive pharmaceuticals from other nations.
Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, said the threat of regulatory action from several federal agencies amounts to "throwing spaghetti against the wall."
"If they throw everything (at drug companies), they are more likely to get drug companies to do what they want," Cannon said.
How will these actions affect what I pay at the pharmacy counter?
The executive order will have "no immediate impact on the American consumer," Barkett said.
The amount consumers pay for prescription drugs depends on their health insurance plans, which often charge copayments or a percentage of the pharmacy bill. Prices also often include complex rebates hidden from public view.
Studies show consumers are feeling the pinch of higher drug prices. A 2023 survey by The Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation that focuses on access to health care, said nearly 2 in 5 people skipped or delayed medical care or didn't fill a prescription that year because they couldn't afford it.
Some Democrats are skeptical that the executive order will deliver meaningful drug price relief to consumers or taxpayers.
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said Trump talks about lowering drug prices "but fails to accomplish anything."
"Rather than changing the law, Trump issues another press release that will offer consumers little or nothing," Doggett said. "Begging Big Pharma to show some benevolence to the taxpayers and consumers, whom they continue to price gouge, will do nothing to assure access to affordable medications."
How much more do US residents pay for prescription drugs?
Americans pay more for these life-saving medications than residents of other wealthy nations.
U.S prescription drug prices run more than 2.5 times those in 32 comparable countries, according to a 2023 HHS report. The U.S. spent $1,310 per person on prescription drugs, compared to $646 per person paid in other developed nations, the report said.
In January 2025, AARP Public Policy Institute examined average list prices on 25 drugs for which Medicare spent the most on but had not yet negotiated lower prices. The report found prices nearly doubled since they hit the market and collectively cost Medicare and taxpayers nearly $50 billion in 2022.
About 7 million older adults on Medicare used the drugs and had to pay a portion of the bill at the pharmacy or via mail order.
How does Trump's order compare to the Biden administration's efforts to lower drug prices?
Under Biden's 2022 climate and health legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare was empowered to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies on a limited number of medications.
The law called for extensive rules, public comments and talks with drug companies before Medicare implemented discounts.
The Biden administration lowered prices on 10 widely prescribed drugs, such as the blood thinner Eliquis, which will take effect in 2026. In January, Medicare announced an additional batch of 15 drugs subject to negotiation for discounts beginning in 2027.
The law also called for penalties on drug companies that raised prices on prescription drugs faster than the rate of inflation.
What does the pharmaceutical industry think about Trump's order?
Stephen Ubl, president and CEO of the trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, agreed with Trump's assessment that foreign countries are not paying their fair share.
Ubl also said pharmacy benefit managers, which negotiate drug prices on behalf of insurers and patients, also demand scrutiny.
"The administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines," Ubl said. "U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation."
But Ubl said U.S. pharmacy benefit managers, insurers and hospitals take half of every dollar spent on medicines.
"The amount going to middlemen often exceeds the price in Europe," Ubl said. "Giving this money directly to patients will lower their medicine costs and significantly reduce the gap with European prices."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tariffs are making these 5 things more expensive in Canada
The trade war between the U.S. and Canada has intensified, with President Donald Trump raising tariffs on Canadian imports from 25% to 35%. While many goods are shielded by an existing North American trade agreement, several key products are being significantly impacted. This latest move follows Canada's earlier imposition of its own counter-tariffs on tens of billions of dollars worth of American products. Experts anticipate that this ongoing dispute will lead to a continued rise in prices for everyday consumer goods in Canada. Fridges and washing machines Tariffs are making household appliances, such as fridges and washing machines more expensive for Canadian consumers. This is due to a combination of Canada's counter-tariffs on U.S. made appliances and the rising cost of American sheet steel, which has been impacted by U.S. tariffs on imported metals. According to Statistics Canada, the price of refrigerators and freezers has increased by an average of 2%, while dishwashing and laundry appliances are up 4.5% compared to last year. While consumers may find ways to save by purchasing non-U.S. products, experts say that "pre-tariff" sales are a clear sign that prices for these items will continue to climb. New and used cars The automotive sector has been hit particularly hard by the ongoing trade dispute between the U.S. and Canada, largely due to the intricate nature of their manufacturing supply chains. A vehicle's components can cross the border up to eight times before final assembly, leaving the industry vulnerable to new tariffs. A 25% tariff on cars and trucks not built in the U.S., along with Canada's reciprocal tariffs and broader metals tariffs, has resulted in a price surge for new vehicles, which were up over 5% in June compared to last year. This has also caused a price increase in the used car market, as experts believe consumers are keeping their vehicles longer to avoid purchasing new ones. Peanut butter, canned soup and other groceries Canada's counter-tariffs are noticeably impacting grocery prices, despite a temporary six-month exemption on some products. Loblaw, the country's largest grocer, is now labeling nearly 7,500 items with a "T" to indicate tariff-related price hikes, and its CEO reports that these items have seen a 20% decline in sales. This includes staples like tomato ketchup, peanut butter, jam, turkey, pasta, and oranges. Experts note that prices for fruit juice have increased by 7.5% and canned soups by 8% due to tariffs on American citrus and steel, as Canada imports most of its food packaging from the U.S. Clothing and footwear In an unexpected reversal of a 20-year trend, clothing and footwear prices in Canada rose by 2% year-over-year in June. According to a Statistics Canada analyst, this price increase is less a result of Canada's counter-tariffs on U.S. goods and more a symptom of the broader global trade war. U.S. tariffs on major Asian manufacturing hubs have created supply chain uncertainty, ultimately driving up costs for the Canadian apparel industry and, in turn, for consumers. Housing and remodeling costs The Canadian home building industry is struggling with the rising cost of materials due to tariffs, a factor that is now delaying project deadlines. A residential developer in Ontario noted that while the total cost increase is hard to calculate, the uncertainty has forced her company to seek out local suppliers.


Glasgow Times
26 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Russia says it will no longer abide by self-imposed missile moratorium
It is a warning that potentially sets the stage for a new arms race as tensions between Moscow and Washington rise again over Ukraine. In a statement on Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry linked the decision to efforts by the US and its allies to develop intermediate-range weapons and preparations for their deployment in Europe and other parts of the world. It specifically cited US plans to deploy Typhoon and Dark Eagle missiles in Germany starting next year. The ministry noted that such actions by the US and its allies create 'destabilising missile potentials' near Russia, creating a 'direct threat to the security of our country' and carry 'significant harmful consequences for regional and global stability, including a dangerous escalation of tensions between nuclear powers'. It did not say what specific moves the Kremlin might take, but President Vladimir Putin has previously announced that Moscow was planning to deploy its new Oreshnik missiles on the territory of its neighbour and ally Belarus later this year. 'Decisions on specific parameters of response measures will be made by the leadership of the Russian Federation based on an interdepartmental analysis of the scale of deployment of American and other Western land-based intermediate-range missiles, as well as the development of the overall situation in the area of international security and strategic stability,' the Foreign Ministry said. The Russian statement follows US President Donald Trump's announcement on Friday that he is ordering the repositioning of two US nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of Dmitry Medvedev, who was president in 2008-12 to allow Mr Putin, bound by term limits, to later return to the office. Mr Trump's statement came as his deadline for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal in Ukraine approaches later this week. Mr Trump said he was alarmed by Mr Medvedev's attitude. Mr Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council chaired by Mr Putin, has apparently sought to curry favour with his mentor by making provocative statements and frequently lobbing nuclear threats. Last week he responded to Mr Trump's deadline for Russia to accept a peace deal in Ukraine or face sanctions by warning him against 'playing the ultimatum game with Russia' and declaring that 'each new ultimatum is a threat and a step toward war'. Former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev (Alamy/PA) Mr Medvedev also commented on the Foreign Ministry's statement, describing Moscow's withdrawal from the moratorium as 'the result of Nato countries' anti-Russian policy'. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with,' he wrote on X. 'Expect further steps.' Intermediate-range missiles can fly between 500 to 5,500 kilometres (310 to 3,400 miles). Such land-based weapons were banned under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Washington and Moscow abandoned the pact in 2019, accusing each other of violations, but Moscow declared its self-imposed moratorium on their deployment until the US makes such a move. The collapse of the INF Treaty has stoked fears of a replay of a Cold War-era European missile crisis, when the US and the Soviet Union both deployed intermediate-range missiles on the continent in the 1980s. Such weapons are seen as particularly destabilising because they take less time to reach targets, compared with intercontinental ballistic missiles, leaving no time for decision-makers and raising the likelihood of a global nuclear conflict over a false launch warning. Russia's missile forces chief has declared that the new Oreshnik intermediate-range missile, which Russia first used against Ukraine in November, has a range to reach all of Europe. Oreshnik can carry conventional or nuclear warheads. Mr Putin has praised the Oreshnik's capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds up to Mach 10 are immune to being intercepted and are so powerful that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack. Mr Putin has warned the West that Moscow could use it against Ukraine's Nato allies who allowed Kyiv to use their longer-range missiles to strike inside Russia.


Daily Mirror
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump wants some holidaymakers to pay $15,000 to enter the US
The US State Department is set to roll out a pilot program that will require some tourist and business visa applicants to pay a bond of up to $15,000 to enter the United States Some tourists will have to fork out $15,000 (£11,500) to enter the US under new plans. The US State Department is gearing up to launch a pilot scheme that will see certain tourists and business visa seekers required to fork out a bond of as much as $15,000 for entry into the United States. This initiative targets individuals from countries with high rates of visa overstays, as revealed in a cable dispatched to State Department personnel on Monday, which Politico managed to get a hold of. For the duration of this year-long trial, applicants for business and tourist visas hailing from specific nations will need to cough up a $10,000 bond per adult and $5,000 for each child. This deposit will be returned at the end of the trip, so long as visa conditions are met. The visa plans have come to light as Trump's interior design choices for the White House have come under scrutiny. Those from countries where screening and vetting data are considered inadequate might also find themselves affected, as detailed in a notice published on the Federal Register's website on Monday. "Aliens applying for visas as temporary visitors for business or pleasure and who are nationals of countries identified by the department as having high visa overstay rates, where screening and vetting information is deemed deficient, or offering citizenship by investment, if the alien obtained citizenship with no residency requirement, may be subject to the pilot program," the notice outlined. The specific countries whose citizens will be subject to the bond will be announced when the program is implemented, although it won't affect those from nations participating in the Visa Waiver Program. The UK is one of those Visa Waiver countries. According to the announcement, the pilot program is set to commence within 15 days following its official publication. A similar six-month visa bond pilot scheme was poised to launch in 2020, but the onset of the COVID pandemic and subsequent decline in international travel meant it never got off the ground, the announcement revealed. "The Department did not implement the pilot and consequently it did not provide any data on the feasibility for full implementation," the statement read. Historically, the Department's advice has been against visa bonds, citing that the "mechanics of posting, processing and discharging a bond are cumbersome" and warning of the "possible misperception of a bond requirement by the public." However, the department has now indicated that this stance is "not supported by any recent examples or evidence, as visa bonds have not generally been required in any recent period."