
InnovationRx: Trump Vows That ‘Major' Pharma Tariffs Are Coming
In this week's edition of InnovationRx, we look at the impact of tariffs on healthcare costs, pioneers of treating MS, AI for clinical decision-making, and more. To get it in your inbox, subscribe here.
Inside an Indian pharmaceutical manufacturing plant.
Last week, Trump made good on a core campaign promise to enact sweeping tariffs, slapping a baseline of 10% tax on imports from every country, with many others singled out for harsher rates, with China now set at 108%. While pharmaceuticals were spared at first, on Tuesday President Trump said that 'a major tariff' on pharmaceuticals would be announced soon. It's now only a question of when and how hard they will hit.
When they do, one of the biggest losers would likely be generic drug manufacturers. Since they account for about 90% of all prescriptions in the United States, a huge segment of Americans who rely on them. About 47% of all generics prescribed in the U.S. are made in India, which is currently facing a 26% tariff. For some generics, costs could become excruciatingly high. ING analyst Diederik Stadig estimated that a 24-week course of generic cancer medication could see cost increases of as much as $10,000 under a 25% tariff.
Mark Cuban, whose Cost-Plus Drug Company manufactures and sells generic drugs, such as penicillin imported from Portugal, told Forbes that any costs elevated by tariffs will absolutely be passed through to patients. 'With only a 15 [percent] markup, we can't absorb any additional costs,' he said.
Meanwhile, despite months of aggressive lobbying, medical device makers did not get a carveout. And with perhaps 40% of all devices manufactured overseas, they're likely headed for a heavy hit that will ripple out through device manufacturers, hospitals, insurers and the millions of people whose health relies on them. Mexico, where the tariff rate has been set at 25%, is a major hub for manufacturing, while other devices are made in Europe, where the rate is now 20%. That means items like pacemakers, insulin pumps and hearing aids are likely to get more expensive.
These increases could be significant for healthcare systems around the country. As Erik Wexler, CEO of Providence, a non-profit Catholic health system based near Seattle that includes 51 hospitals, said: 'Potential cuts to Medicaid on top of tariffs will cripple health systems across the country, which could create a national emergency in terms of access to health care, especially for those who are most vulnerable.'
Alberto Ascherio and Stephen L. Hauser, 2025 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences winners
Stephen Hauser and Alberto Ascherio, two pioneers in the study of multiple sclerosis, received one of the $3 million Breakthrough Prizes in Life Sciences last week. The money for the awards comes from the Breakthrough Prize Foundation, founded by Yuri and Julia Milner, as well as from Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, and Priscilla Chan; Google cofounder Sergey Brin and 23andMe cofounder Anne Wojcicki.
MS is a progressive autoimmune disease where the body's own immune system attacks myelin, the protective cover that surrounds nerve fibers, disrupting interactions between the brain and the rest of the body. This can result in patients eventually losing the ability to walk or move.
Hauser, a neurologist at the University of California San Francisco, was recognized for his key discovery for MS. For decades, the prevailing wisdom was that rogue T-cells were responsible for the damage seen in MS patients. Hauser became skeptical of the conventional wisdom, when he realized that the animal models being used to study MS didn't line up with what he observed in his own MS patients, he told Forbes. He and his colleagues eventually determined that white blood cells called B cells were the actual culprit. That insight has led to new therapies that have revolutionized treatment for the disease.
Hauser credits the National Institutes of Health for enabling his work. 'It's the NIH that was the anchor for the science that has moved us in one generation from a time when a person with MS would be completely disabled within 15 years to today, where a person whose MS is just beginning can anticipate a life free from disability,' he said.
Ascherio, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, received the prize for his discovery that MS is fundamentally caused by infection with Epstein-Barr virus–which is also the cause of mononucleosis. Proving this required an extraordinary rigorous study tracking the records of more than 10 million military servicemembers over time. Ascherio told Forbes he hopes this finding could eventually lead to an antiviral or even a vaccine against multiple sclerosis.
'A vaccine to prevent infections is challenging,' he said. 'But if you could prevent infection, you could prevent MS.'
A new study found that using Fertilo, a stem cell-based fertility treatment developed by biotech company Gameto, in conjunction with in vitro maturation (IVM) more than doubled the rate of successful pregnancies compared to conventional IVM methods. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, involved 40 patients and tested both safety and efficacy of the treatment. The company is currently enrolling patients into a phase 3 clinical study of Fertilo. In December, Gameto (founded by Forbes 30 Under 30 alumna Dina Radenkovic) announced the first birth of a baby conceived using the Fertilo treatment.
Can artificial intelligence rival doctors' decision-making? A new study by researchers at Cedars-Sinai, Tel Aviv University and digital health startup K Health says yes—at least in certain circumstances. The new study, published in the peer-reviewed Annals of Internal Medicine, looked at the recommendations of K Health's AI chatbot compared to those of the real-life doctors for patients who came to virtual urgent-care appointments with acute respiratory, urinary, vaginal, eye or dental symptoms. It found that the AI matched doctors' clinical decisions in two-thirds of cases, and offered higher-quality care overall for the remaining one-third.
Additive manufacturing firm 3D Systems said that it had 3D-printed the first high-performance plastic facial implant at the point of care. The custom medical device was used during a successful surgery in mid-March at University Hospital Basel in Switzerland.
A new report from RAND highlights the precariousness of emergency departments in hospitals across the country. The report finds that ERs are increasingly dealing with more complex–and acute–medical issues. Meanwhile, payments are falling and sometimes even being withheld. The study's authors recommend more funding to support emergency departments and greater investments in primary care to help reduce crowding.
Plus: RFK Jr. plans to tell the CDC to stop recommending fluoride, which strengthens teeth and reduces cavities, in drinking water across the country.
Recently launched biotech firm RayThera raised $110 million led by Foresite Capital and OrbiMed Advisors to develop small-molecule therapies in immunology. The San Diego-based company will use the funds to move its drug candidates into Phase 1 clinical studies. Cofounder and CEO Qing Dong sold his previous startup, XinThera, which was working in the areas of oncology and inflammation, to Gilead in 2023 for an undisclosed sum.
Plus: GSK has entered into a licensing agreement with Korean biotech ABL for its neurological therapeutics in a deal worth up to $2.6 billion.
Measles outbreaks may be the new normal as the Trump Administration's actions set the stage for a resurgence of the disease. A second child died of the disease over the weekend in Texas, where the number of cases has now risen above 500.
The Trump Administration won't expand Medicare and Medicare coverage for GLP-1 drugs, rejecting a proposal from the Biden Administration to help people pay for the popular obesity drugs.
Over the past few decades, public health efforts have made HIV a manageable disease rather than a deadly one. The Trump Administration's budget cuts threaten to change that.
Biotech startups are struggling as the NIH slashes funding.
Health insurance company stocks soared after the federal government announced that reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage plans would increase by more than 5%.
Trump's gutting of environmental programs could lead to worsening asthma attacks, increased ER visits and other big health problems for Americans.
Hinge Health considers delaying its IPO after Trump tariffs send markets plummeting.
Cuts at the FDA are so significant that they may prevent the government from spending user fees, which could significantly slow the drug approval process.
There's currently no acting director of the CDC, as Susan Monarez had to step back from the role once Trump nominated her for the permanent director role. That means crucial decisions for the agency can only be made by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Hashtags

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


Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Traders Scour for ‘Elusive' Catalyst to Push S&P 500 to Record
For stock traders there's little to fear at the moment. Corporate America keeps churning out solid earnings. The chances of a recession aren't blaring. And President Donald Trump's tariff policy is expected to become more clear before long. So what's there to worry about?


Black America Web
13 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE


CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.