EU scramble to interpret Trump's new drug pricing order
Reuters
European governments are examining whether US President Donald Trump can force them to pay more for prescription medicines, after he issued an executive order to lower US drug prices, roiling the global pharmaceutical industry.
On Monday, Trump took aim at governments paying a fraction of what Americans have to shell out for their medicines, and directed the use of trade policy to force other nations to pay more for prescription drugs. The Trump administration wants to reduce the gap between US drug prices and those in other developed countries such as many in Europe, where prescription drugs cost, on average, one-third what they do in the United States.
Denmark's industry and business minister Morten Bodskov plans to meet with drugmakers based in his country to discuss the order. He did not give details about the meeting. 'The uncertainty (caused) by the US is bad for the world,' he told Reuters. 'Danish pharmaceutical companies are among the best in the world and are of great importance to Denmark. The message from Trump does not change that.' The country of six million has benefited from the expansion of Novo Nordisk and the outsize demand for its diabetes drug Ozempic and for Wegovy, one of the powerful new weight-loss drugs singled out by Trump in his push to lower prices. Novo, Europe's third-largest listed company worth 265 billion euros ($295.74 billion), said it looked forward to the meeting.
In the US, drug prices are shaped by complex negotiations involving pharmacy benefit managers that act as middlemen between drugmakers and employer clients and health insurers and have been criticised for inflating costs. In Europe, countries generally have public health systems that negotiate directly with manufacturers and keep costs down. The European Commission, the EU executive, will assess the impact of Trump's order on European companies, a spokesperson told reporters on Tuesday. 'We know the pharmaceutical industry faces challenges both in the US and the EU,' the spokesperson said, noting Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had met with executives last month to address concerns about the threat of US tariffs on medicines.
Trump's effort during his first term through a more limited executive order focused on certain drugs covered by the government's Medicare program — was blocked by a court. Trump said if drugmakers do not cut prices they could be hit with tariffs. His administration launched a probe last month into pharmaceutical imports as a potential precursor to placing levies on medicines on national security grounds. 'The United States will no longer subsidize the healthcare of foreign countries, which is what we were doing,' Trump said on Monday. 'I'm not knocking the drug companies. I'm really more knocking the countries than the drug companies.'
Although Americans pay significantly more for medicines, they have access to a greater number of treatments. Some 55% more cancer drugs were launched in the U.S. than in the UK over the past three decades, according to a 2024 study in the British Medical Journal.
An AstraZeneca spokesperson said the company supports fairer global sharing of pharmaceutical costs, but that changes must avoid 'disrupting patient care, undermining U.S. biotech leadership, or stifling innovation.'
Seven drug pricing experts and lawyers told Reuters it is unclear how the administration could legally demand confidential contract details between drugmakers and governments. That information would be needed as Trump's order calls for giving drugmakers price targets within a month.
Strict cost containment measures and reimbursement policies prevent drugmakers from charging Britain's financially strapped state-funded National Health Service more for new drugs, said Daniel Howdon, a health economist at the University of Leeds.
'Unless there is some sort of overhaul of UK law or policy, Trump's order will not be able to achieve higher prices,' he said.
A spokesperson for Germany's health ministry told Reuters it was not possible to predict how the U.S. order may be implemented.
Germany has a 'clearly defined framework for price negotiations on medicines between statutory health insurance and the pharmaceutical industry,' the spokesperson said.
The call for developed countries to pay more for drugs so the U.S. can pay less comes as worries grow that uncertainty caused by Trump's whiplash trade war will dampen the 27-nation bloc's already-weak economy.
Even with the threat of tariffs, governments may be unable and unwilling to spend more on medicines, particularly as populations age and healthcare budgets tighten, UBS analyst Trung Huynh said.
The UK government does not publish the prices it pays for NHS drugs, but a source at the UK's Department of Health and Social Care said prices for some treatments are about a quarter of those paid by the U.S.
The DHSC did not respond to a request for comment.
Still, a source at a European drugmaker told Reuters the Trump administration could still exert pressure to try to force governments to alter their longstanding pricing practices embedded in national health systems.
'I read this as him showing pharma all of the negotiating tools he has at his disposal,' said Anna Kaltenboeck, a health economist at Verdant Research, 'and giving them some credible threat based on his willingness to impose tariffs so far.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sharjah 24
4 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
Russia has won war in Ukraine, Hungray's Orban says
In power since 2010, Orban has been criticised by some European leaders for his government's ties with Russia and opposition to military aid for Ukraine, while his cabinet is struggling to revive the economy from an inflation shock. Orban, who has maintained close ties with Putin even after Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, became the only European Union leader on Monday not to endorse a joint statement saying Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its future. "We are talking now as if this were an open-ended war situation, but it is not. The Ukrainians have lost the war. Russia has won this war," Orban told the 'Patriot' YouTube channel in an interview. "The only question is when and under what circumstances will the West, who are behind the Ukrainians, admit that this has happened and what will result from all this." Hungray, which gets most of its energy from Russia, has refused to send weapons to Ukraine, with Orban also strongly opposing Ukraine's EU membership, saying it would wreak havoc on Hungarian farmers and the wider economy. Orban said Europe had missed an opportunity to negotiate with Putin under former U.S. President Joe Biden's administration and now was at risk of its future being decided without its involvement. "If you are not at the negotiating table, you are on the menu," Orban said, adding that he partly opposed the EU's joint statement on Ukraine as it made Europe look "ridiculous and pathetic." "When two leaders sit down to negotiate with each other, the Americans and the Russians ... and you're not invited there, you don't rush for the phone, you don't run around, you don't shout in from the outside."
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
How Italy adopted a harsher tone on Israel amid public anger over Gaza war
Italy, a close Israeli ally in the EU, has adopted a harsher tone on the country in recent weeks as domestic pressure from public opinion over the war in Gaza mounts. Defence Minister Guido Crosetto this week condemned Israel's intention to occupy Gaza city, saying the country's cabinet had "lost its reason and humanity". Recently pressed by pro-Palestine activists to "say a word about the genocide", Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni responded that she "worked every day on the Palestine genocide", in apparent acknowledgement of a hotly contested term that is rejected by Israel and the US. With a population estimated at 59 million, Italy is the EU's third-largest economy. Its position is closely scrutinised as any shift in the bloc's bigger countries could influence discussions over an EU vote in Brussels on imposing sanctions on Israel. "The political class, which has been rather silent over the past two years, senses that is no longer strategic to remain silent," said Maria Luisa Fantappie, a programme head at the Institute of International Affairs in Rome. "They are feeling pressure from the bottom." Ms Meloni is regarded as one of US President Donald Trump's strongest allies in Europe and has rarely publicly backed policy at odds with his. Yet she also has to reckon with polls showing that support for Israel is at an all-time low. A June YouGov survey found that at six per cent, Italians scored the lowest when asked if Israel had responded proportionally to the October 7 attacks, compared to Germans, Danes, French and Spanish. Italy has rarely taken pioneering positions in foreign policy issues in the past decades Head of Africa and Middle East Programme at Istituto Affari Internazionali in Rome In a phone call with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Ms Meloni on Monday expressed her "deep concern" over Israel's plans to occupy Gaza city after 22 months of war. Israel's military operation has killed 61,599 Palestinians after about 1,200 people died in a Hamas-led attack against Israel. Comparison to Putin Yet the Italian cabinet is unlikely to translate its change in tone to policy as it probably wants to stay aligned with the US, analysts have told The National. Kelly Petillo, programme manager for the Middle East and North Africa at the European Council on Foreign Relations, described Mr Crosetto's statements on Monday as "the toughest so far expressed by a member of the Meloni government." Mr Crosetto, a harsh Russian critic, told the daily La Stampa that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had adopted methods that had become "dangerously similar" to those of Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. His comments were probably motivated by the fact that even within Israel's defence establishment there is reportedly no support for the recently announced new plan to take over Gaza, Ms Petillo said. Experts expressed doubt that Italy would lift its opposition to a suspension, even partially, of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which would represent the most meaningful step taken at a co-ordinated level against Israel. Ms Meloni, who last month visited Algeria, takes pride in engaging diplomatically with Arab states. She is perpetuating an Italian tradition, adopted previously by centrist governments, of not displeasing the US and keeping business and diplomatic ties with Israel, Ms Fantappie said. "Italy has rarely taken pioneering positions in foreign policy issues in the past decades," she added. No Palestine state recognition Italy also appears to be no closer to recognising Palestinian statehood, despite a push by France which has so far convinced G7 countries such as Canada and the UK, as well as Australia. Rome's position remains steadfast, although Italy was one of the 17 states that took part in a two-state solution conference in New York last month, led by Saudi Arabia and France. "Italy is keen for recognition to have an impact but is aware that if Washington doesn't change tack, then Israel will not either and to Italy this means recognising Palestine will not have impact," Ms Petillo said. Recognising a Palestinian state does not equate with endorsing sanctions against Israel, Ms Fantappie highlighted. "Supporting the Global Alliance for a two-solution doesn't necessarily mean and entail a substantial revision of their own relation to Israel," she said. France, which has led the initiative, has also shied away from imposing sanctions on Israel, and has said it would not enforce an ICC arrest warrant against Mr Netanyahu. The latest and most controversial move to be taken by a European country was Germany's decision to partially suspend weapons exports to Israel. Germany views Israel's security as "reason of state" because of its responsibility in the Holocaust, and its weapons exports represent about one third of Israel's military purchases. The decision caused criticism among some politicians in Chancellor Friedrich Merz's political party. Mr Merz has defended his decision, saying his country could not supply weapons in a conflict in which hundreds or thousands could be killed. Neither Italy nor Germany have clarified their position on the EU Commission's recent proposal to partially suspend Israel from a flagship research programme, Horizon. Although the move is widely described as symbolic, it would be the first concrete step at EU level against Israel, and is supported by countries, including France and The Netherlands. For now, it appears that Italy and Germany are watching each other closely. "Italy is watching Germany's posturing very carefully and might indeed shift its position if Berlin does too in a substantial way – which at this stage is still uncertain it will happen," Ms Petillo said.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Sanctions based on flimsy evidence serve only to annoy, not influence, their targets
European lawyers and academics are increasingly exercised about the continued use of sanctions against individuals the British government and EU regard as being closely associated with Vladimir Putin 's regime. What irks them is that they are being imposed on the thinnest of evidence, to justify a political end. The recent case before the Supreme Court of the sanctions placed on Eugene Shvidler, associate of sanctioned multibillionaire and former Chelsea FC owner, Roman Abramovich, has raised hackles. What drew attention was the 20-page, particularly trenchant, dissenting judgment of the UK Supreme Court's Lord Leggatt. In it, he used a most non-judge word to describe the move against Shvidler. It was "Orwellian" and he wrote: "I do not consider that the reasons relied on by the government come close to justifying such a drastic curtailment of his liberty." Leggatt was in the minority. The other four judges upheld the move. The UK government singled out Shvidler, who holds dual British-US nationality, not because he was close to Putin, but because of his ties to Abramovich, who does or did have links with the Russian leader. Lawyers for Shvidler, who has five children, all British citizens, argued that the effects of blacklisting him and his family were "manifestly disproportionate". After he was cited, Marlborough College did not allow his daughter to return for the rest of the academic year and Harrow School withdrew his son's place. Nevertheless, the four decreed: "Whilst Mr Shvidler cannot be expected to place himself and his family in physical danger, he could take further steps to pressure those with whom he is involved to encourage President Putin to cease destabilising Ukraine, or distance themselves from President Putin." That drew a quick response from across the professional spectrum, with the judges accused of unworldliness and a lack of understanding of the influence that Shvidler – or indeed any businessman – would have on Putin or those around him. Lawyers rarely put their heads above the parapet, but Fabian Barth, a Dusseldorf solicitor, felt compelled to write: "It is therefore worrying that the UK Supreme Court has just given the government the right to employ the sanctions regime against individual rights based on what Lord George Leggatt, in a dissenting judgment, rightly describes as 'flimsy reasons' … in a nutshell, the government argued that an individual can be deprived of all their money and other assets indefinitely because there is some faint hope they might, fingers crossed, have some influence on the actions of the Russian regime (not that there was any evidence to that effect whatsoever)." Shvidler said: "This Supreme Court judgment brings me back to the USSR, which I left as a stateless refugee 36 years ago, seeking sanctuary in the US. Back then, individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections and that is how I feel about this judgment." He added that official decisions about whom to penalise are "often not about targeting those who really have supported and benefited from the Russian state, but more about cheap virtue-signalling". Shvidler is one of a list of cases where sanctions have been applied in seemingly the weakest of circumstances. They include: In March 2022, Formula One driver Nikita Mazepin and his father Dmitry were sanctioned by the EU, UK and Canada following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Italian authorities seized their $114 million Sardinian property. After being dropped by F1, Mazepin founded We Compete as One to advocate for athletes excluded due to political decisions. In 2023, he challenged the sanctions in court to revive his motor-racing career. A UK court denied his appeal but the EU allowed him limited travel for motorsport purposes. In March 2024, the EU fully raised the bar against him. Alexander Pumpyanskiy, a Swiss citizen sanctioned by the EU in September 2022 solely due to being the son of Dmitry Pumpyanskiy, founder of Russian industrial giant TMK. He had long since resigned from corporate boards and lived in Switzerland. In November 2023, a court ruled the blocks unlawful and annulled them. Still, the EU relisted him in March 2024 on the same grounds (his family connection), effectively ignoring judicial review and penalising him for his parentage without showing any personal wrongdoing. Serial entrepreneur and banker, Oleg Tinkov vocally condemned the Russian attack on Ukraine, sold his bank and renounced his Russian citizenship soon afterwards. Even so, he was blacklisted by the UK. The sanctions were removed days after Sir Richard Branson interceded. Azerbaijani-Russian businessman, Farkhad Akhmedov, similarly moved assets and distanced himself from the Kremlin after the invasion but remained under sanctions until they were recently lifted in court. At the same time, various entities that are wholly or majority-owned by sanctioned entities go unpunished. Agroholding Steppe and Trading Steppe, two Russian trading firms majority-owned by designated Russian conglomerate AFK Sistema, remain free to trade commodities and go about their business. In a report last year, Dean Armstrong KC, a specialist lawyer in international sanctions, concluded they are frequently levied without due process, and fail to constrain the intended target. Instead, he said, sanctions have had a "dire effect" on "innocent" British and EU citizens and their families, who have no chance to argue their case and simply face unilateral punishment, which takes years to undo. The wider impact, including, for instance, relating to compliance for financial counterparties, is much more permanent. Sanctions are, Anderson wrote, "largely arbitrary". He went on: "The standard of proof required is well below the criminal standard, which is concerning given the effect of the penal sanctions imposed. Thus, UK sanctions effectively act as a form of quasi-criminal liability without due process." Anderson criticised "the unlawful, politically motivated and arbitrary nature of the UK sanctions regime". In a paper, Lord Robert Skidelsky, the economic historian and chairman of the Centre for Global Studies, has described the use of sanctions as "a weapon out of control". Governments, he said, should "never be trigger-happy with economic sanctions. They have uncontrollable consequences. They should come into play only after diplomacy has been exhausted, never as an alternative to it. This has not been the case in the present [Russia-Ukraine] conflict." Skidelsky concluded: "Economic sanctions should exclude the 'guilt by association' fallacy – that of assuming that those who do business with sanctioned entities share their aims. Only those 'controlled by' the sanctioned entity should themselves be sanctioned. Extraterritorial sanctions against individuals and entities on grounds of 'reasonable suspicion' of their 'association' with sanctioned states or sub-states are particularly egregious, because they can destroy thousands of businesses and livelihoods on the whim of governments." Too often, designations are levied with the flimsiest of evidence on parties that have no influence on or benefit from the war or the Russian regime, with sanctions only serving to curtail individual freedom with no strategic gain – or worse, damaging the cause of allies of Ukraine by driving people and money back into Putin's arms. In breaking ranks in the manner he did, Lord Leggatt's name can be added to those who support that view.
