Trump pressures 17 pharma CEOs to cut US drug prices
Trump signed a sweeping executive order in May demanding drugmakers cut US medicine prices to match those abroad, saying that if companies did not comply, the government could use rulemaking to bring prices down or pursue other measures, such as importing cheaper medicines from overseas.
Trump sent the letters to the chief executives of Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck & Co, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, among others, the White House said.
'Most proposals my Administration has received to 'resolve' this critical issue promised more of the same; shifting blame and requesting policy changes that would result in billions of dollars in handouts to industry,' Trump wrote in the letters, copies of which were posted on his Truth Social account.
Shares of Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Gilead Sciences closed down about 2 per cent each, while the NYSE Arca Pharmaceutical Index fell 3 per cent on Thursday.
Trump called on drugmakers to provide so-called most-favoured-nation prices to every patient enrolled in the government Medicaid health programme for low-income people, and to guarantee such pricing for new drugs.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
The policy is aimed at cutting US prescription drug prices to the lowest possible price paid by members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which includes most of the world's largest economies.
Trump also said companies must return excess overseas revenue from raising prices in other countries to offset lower prices in the US to American patients and taxpayers through an agreement with the government.
He is requiring drugmakers to stipulate they would not offer other developed nations better prices than what they offer the United States, and said his administration would provide ways to cut out middlemen and sell directly to patients, provided they do so at most-favoured-nation prices.
Trump gave companies until Sept 29 to respond with binding commitments to those terms.
'If you refuse to step up, we will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect Americans from abusive drug pricing practices,' he warned.
Analysts, lobbyists and drug pricing experts said it seemed unlikely that the pharmaceutical companies would comply with Trump's demand to lower US prices.
'I might expect them to try to determine if any of their current products might be made available via direct sales (one of the requests) at a lower price than currently available in the US,' said Stacie Dusetzina, professor of health policy at Nashville's Vanderbilt University.
UBS analyst Trung Huynh said Trump's letters were a repeat of earlier demands and played down any likely industry impact, calling it 'just another shot in the dark.'
Trump has already pushed for voluntary changes and some companies have pledged to build new US manufacturing plants.
US patients pay by far the most for prescription medicines, often nearly three times more than in other developed nations. The country also invests heavily in pharmaceutical research and development. Drugmakers have said drastic price cuts would stifle innovation.
Pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Novartis, AbbVie and German Merck KGaA's US division, EMD Serono, said they were open to working with the Trump administration.
Pfizer is working closely with the Trump Administration and Congress to improve access and affordability for American patients, said spokeswoman Amy Rose. 'Our discussions have been productive,' she said. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
18 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Russia says its forces control village in Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox MOSCOW - Russian forces pressing their slow advance through eastern Ukraine have captured the village of Sichneve in east-central Dnipropetrovsk region, the Russian Defence Ministry said on Tuesday. Russian forces have for months been pushing westward along sections of the 1,000-km (620-mile) front line, capturing new villages nearly on a daily basis, mainly in Donetsk region. Ukraine's military says its forces are holding their frontline positions and on Monday issued a pointed denial that its troops were surrounded in Pokrovsk, a logistics hub in Donetsk region under heavy attack for months. Russian forces now hold about 20% of Ukraine's territory since invading their smaller neighbour in February 2022 and have formally annexed four regions -- Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Moscow says it has full control of Luhansk region and holds parts of the others, plus Crimea, a peninsula it seized in 2014. Authorities in Kyiv made no mention of Moscow's latest announcement of a captured village in Dnipropetrovsk region and for weeks have denied that Russian forces have entered the region. Reuters could not independently confirm the battlefield report. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Finding hidden vapes: Inside ICA's mission to uncover contraband at land checkpoints Singapore Delays on East-West MRT Line between Boon Lay and Buona Vista due to track point fault Singapore Sorting recyclables by material could boost low domestic recycling rate: Observers Asia Trump's sharp India criticism on tariffs, Russia oil corner Modi as rift deepens Singapore More train rides taken in first half-year, but overall public transport use stays below 2019 levels Singapore BlueSG needs time to develop software, refresh fleet, say ex-insiders after winding-down news Asia Cambodia-Thailand border clash a setback for Asean: Vivian Balakrishnan Singapore Doctor hounded ex-girlfriend, threatened to share her intimate photos, abducted her off street The General Staff of Ukraine's military said Ukrainian forces continued action to contain Russian forces that have been trying to move closer to Pokrovsk, once a city of 60,000 residents and site of Ukraine's only colliery producing coking coal. "At the same time, some sources are disseminating information suggesting that our units are surrounded in Pokrovsk," it said in an evening report. "This is absolutely not true." Ukraine's top commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, writing on Facebook, said Russian forces were trying to advance along the entire length of the front line. He said Ukrainian forces were facing the toughest fighting near Pokrovsk and two other areas of Donetsk region. But he added Kyiv's troops had "achieved successes" in Sumy region on Ukraine's northern border, where Russian forces had secured a foothold in recent months. He also said they continued to fight in Russia's Kursk region, where Kyiv staged a mass incursion a year ago. Russia said it had expelled all Ukrainian troops from Kursk in April. REUTERS
Business Times
18 minutes ago
- Business Times
Has Trump won the trade wars?
TRADE tensions are continuing to evolve, as US President Donald Trump last week unveiled his much delayed reciprocal tariffs. He increased tariffs on merchandise from about 70 countries and raised the rate on certain products made in Canada to a punitive 35 per cent. Trump claims his moves will rebalance a global trade system that he argues has been tilted against the world's largest economy. But the question of whether Trump has emerged victorious from the trade wars requires a complex economic and geopolitical assessment that focuses on economic outcomes, strategic objectives and long-term implications for American competitiveness. As of now, the trade war landscape remains dynamic and contentious, reflecting volatility rather than clear victory. After Trump increased his tariffs, China retaliated in March by imposing 10 to 15 per cent tariffs on select agricultural, meat and dairy products. The escalation reached unprecedented levels as Beijing responded to Trump's moves with retaliatory tariffs at 125 per cent on certain goods in April. Yet, there have also been attempts at de-escalation. In mid-May, the Trump administration reached an agreement with China to lower tariffs dramatically and open some markets that both sides had closed off as tensions rose. Tariffs on Chinese imports fell to 35 per cent from 145 per cent. Whether the temporary trade truce will be extended beyond Aug 12 remains unclear even after recent talks in Stockholm last week. In separate trade deals with Japan and the European Union (EU), the Trump administration secured significant concessions from its partners without offering equivalent ones in return. The EU and Japan will accept 15 per cent tariffs on most exports to the US, with the EU agreeing to make large purchases of American energy and military equipment, and the Japanese agreeing to invest US$550 billion in the US and to increase purchases of American-sourced fossil fuel, nuclear energy and aircraft. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up From a fiscal perspective, the tariffs appear to generate substantial revenue, with the Tax Foundation estimating that they will raise over US$2 trillion through to 2034. However, once the tariffs' negative impact on the US economy is accounted for, the realistic dynamic revenue falls to US$1.4 trillion – a figure that is eroded even more by foreign retaliation. This demonstrates that the fiscal gains come at a direct cost to overall economic growth. The trade war's intensification has created significant economic disruption for US businesses and consumers. According to an Aug 1 analysis by the Budget Lab at Yale, the full scope of US tariffs and foreign retaliation is projected to reduce payroll employment by 497,000 jobs by the end of 2025. Furthermore, the report estimates that the US economy will be persistently 0.4 per cent smaller in the long run. These represent substantial economic costs that must be weighed against any strategic gains. One of Trump's central promises has been to revitalise American manufacturing through protective tariffs, but the results have been disappointing. The sector lost a combined 14,000 net jobs in May and June, according to federal data. Factory employment has dropped to the lowest level in five years. This runs contrary to Trump's assertion that higher tariffs would translate to more American manufacturing jobs. Trump's tariffs have largely failed to overcome broader economic forces driving manufacturing overseas, pointing to structural challenges that run deeper than trade policy alone. From 1997 to 2024, the US lost around five million manufacturing jobs, experiencing one of the largest drops in manufacturing employment in history. Moreover, despite the aggressive tariff strategy, America's fundamental trade imbalance persists. The real US trade deficit has increased every year since 2016, reducing GDP growth by roughly 0.25 per cent annually over 2017 to 2019, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Tariffs alone cannot solve these structural trade imbalances. The trade war's ultimate success or failure may depend on developments that extend well beyond Trump's current term. The structural challenges facing American manufacturing, including automation, global supply chains and comparative labour costs, cannot be solved through tariffs alone. Meanwhile, the economic costs of sustained trade conflict continue to accumulate. China's retaliatory capacity and economic resilience have also proven greater than many initially anticipated, while US businesses and consumers bear the burden of higher prices and economic uncertainty. The temporary truces and agreements reached so far suggest that both sides recognise the need for de-escalation, but fundamental disagreements remain unresolved. While the tariffs have achieved some tactical objectives, like generating revenue and forcing periodic negotiations, they have largely failed to deliver on their primary strategic promises of manufacturing revival and trade balance improvement. The economic costs have been substantial and measurable, while the benefits remain largely theoretical or temporary. Most significantly, the trade war has not reversed the long-term decline in American manufacturing employment or meaningfully reduced trade deficits. At the same time, there are questions about the durability of the trade agreements that the Trump administration has signed, with foreign governments wondering whether the president will honour the new pacts. Rather than a clear victory, Trump's trade wars represent an ongoing strategic gamble with uncertain long-term payoffs.
Business Times
18 minutes ago
- Business Times
Fight for private equity talent in Asia heats up
[SINGAPORE] The recent furore between US banking giants and private equity (PE) firms over the poaching of junior analysts from the banks has brought renewed focus to an ongoing practice. In Asia, the battle for talent is hotting up as PE managers are under pressure to deploy US$260 billion in dry powder . In key Asian financial hubs such as Hong Kong and Singapore, the situation is less cut-throat, market participants say. Recruiters and executives at three of the biggest American private capital companies told The Business Times that while there are instances of PE firms hiring bankers, the circumstances are different for every market. In particular, the making of future-dated offers to junior investment banking analysts and associates is not as common as in the US. The practice of PE companies extending offers to junior investment banking analysts – even those who have not started working at the banks – led to a backlash. Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs recently told their newly hired investment banking analysts to disclose if they had already accepted job offers from elsewhere. Market players in Hong Kong and Singapore said there is less pressure to recruit junior staff en masse as the PE operations here are more compact. Given that PE firms are generally leaner than banks, their teams in Asian hubs are even smaller compared with those in the US, which is home to the world's largest PE market. For instance, Blackstone, the world's biggest alternative asset manager, employed 4,895 staff globally as at 2024, compared with more than 300,000 at the largest US bank, JPMorgan. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Of the three big US PE firms that BT spoke to, only one said it prefers to hire those with at least three to five years of investment banking experience, so they can hit the ground running. All spoke on condition of anonymity, given the topic's sensitivity in a tight-knit sector. Two of them say they prefer to hire directly from the top business schools and train new associates, with the focus on retention with attractive compensation and clear career paths. 'The bigger shops don't have the time to train people up,' said an executive from a big US-listed PE firm. That is why investment banks could provide a good place for PE firms to hire, particularly for the larger funds in South-east Asia, because junior investment bankers or analysts would have already worked on a lot of financial modelling, considered grunt work at PE firms. It is a point that some recruiters concur with. Standard Chartered is one bank seeing 'strong market demand' for its staff, particularly in Hong Kong and Singapore. 'Undeniable global trend' Nicholas Cheng, head of private markets at Standard Chartered Global Private Bank, said: 'It's an undeniable global trend that PE and other private market firms, with their often different compensation structures and work environments, have become very attractive to junior talent, especially analysts, from traditional investment banking and financial services.' While StanChart's overall retention rate is good, it views the 'competitive talent landscape' as an industry-wide challenge. He added that StanChart is actively recruiting from top-tier universities, particularly graduates with strong analytical skills. Banks have always had to work to keep their staff from being poached by PE firms. Transitioning to PE from investment banking 'is seen as a natural progression due to the significant overlap in skills, like financial modelling and deal execution', said Lim Chai Leng, general manager for banking and financial services at Randstad. PE roles are particularly attractive, given the opportunities for new skills to conduct in-depth research, as well as long-term and greater strategic ownership over portfolio management. The more attractive compensation packages and better work flexibility also draw talent to PE, she added. Data from Robert Walters shows that the total compensations for all positions in PE firms are generally higher than those at investment banks in Singapore. An analyst at a PE firm could draw an annual salary of between S$90,000 and S$130,000, compared with S$80,000 to S$110,000 at an investment bank. When bonuses are included, the PE analyst could see total pay go up to as high as S$180,000, versus S$160,000 at a bank. The gap widens for the more senior roles, with a managing director at a PE firm drawing more than S$1 million after factoring in bonuses. Being heavily performance-based, carry – or a share of profits when returns from the PE funds exceed a certain level – becomes more significant from the vice-president level. '(The) banking-to-PE talent migration is a clear and ongoing trend throughout South-east Asia, with Singapore leading,' said Serena Fernando, senior consultant for banking and financial services at Robert Walters Singapore. PE firms have been hiring a mix of junior and senior staff in South-east Asia, particularly this year, as a delay in the expected recovery in deal activity is creating extra pressure for the companies to deploy capital and deliver returns, said Fernando. This makes having 'effective deal teams – and strong talent – critical', she added. Pressure to deploy Globally, the amount of dry powder available – referring to the capital that PE fund managers have raised but not yet deployed – is US$1.2 trillion, with about US$260 billion in the Asia-Pacific, figures from Bain & Co indicated. With the pressure to hunt for deals and deploy the dry powder, Fernando said there is strong demand for senior bankers in PE. 'As deal complexity increases – especially in carve-outs, tech-driven transactions and public-to-private deals – PE firms are seeking experienced leaders who can drive executive and add strategic value.' This could give investment bankers an edge for senior PE roles, as typically the executives at these levels would need to demonstrate not just dealmaking skills but also others, such as the ability to run portfolio companies. Sixth Street, a San Francisco-based global investment firm with over US$60 billion in assets under management and committed capital, last month announced it hired Stuart Wrigley from Goldman Sachs to head its Asia-Pacific business. He will also lead its new Singapore office, which is slated to open in October 2025.
