logo
Can Trump lower prescription drug prices? Here's why U.S. drug costs are so high.

Can Trump lower prescription drug prices? Here's why U.S. drug costs are so high.

CBS News14-05-2025
What to know about President Trump's executive order plans aimed at slashing drug prices
President Trump signed an executive order Monday that will attempt to bring down the cost of some drugs in the United States — but why are drug prices so high to begin with?
On average, Americans pay almost three times as much for prescription drugs as people in other high-income countries like the U.K., Germany or France, according to a 2024 report published by the nonprofit research organization RAND. For some medications, the cost difference is even steeper. A month of insulin, for example, costs about $100 in the U.S., compared to only about $10 in France, RAND found.
In large part, this comes down to price negotiations.
"You're talking about contrasting us with countries that have essentially universal health care, where you have the government that is paying for everything, negotiating for all the drug prices," Dr. Céline Gounder, CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News, said Monday. "So when you have one player that's negotiating on behalf of the entire population, you just have a lot more negotiating power."
The closest comparison in the U.S. is likely Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people over 65 years old, Gounder said, but that doesn't cover all Americans. Additionally, the ability for Medicare to negotiate drug prices didn't happen until the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law in 2022 by President Joe Biden and it only allows for negotiations of "a small fraction of all prescription drugs," Gounder said.
Because the U.S. doesn't have universal health care, "we don't have one negotiator for our drug prices," Gounder said.
Most Americans have private health insurance, and the prices they pay for prescriptions are negotiated through Pharmacy Benefit Managers or PBMs.
In theory, PBMs should help control growth in drug prices due to their ability to negotiate manufacturer rebates and other cost-effectiveness options, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit foundation that advocates for health equity.
"But PBMs have financial incentives that may contribute to growth in drug prices, higher patient out-of-pocket costs, and the closing of independent pharmacies in rural areas and low-income neighborhoods," the group notes on its website.
Last year, the Federal Trade Commission called out pharmacy benefit managers — often described as prescription drug middlemen — for benefiting off of inflated drug prices. PBMs wield enormous control over the availability and cost of drugs, the FTC said in a report released in July 2024.
In a more recent January report, the FTC said three major PBMs hiked costs for a wide range of lifesaving drugs, including medications to treat heart disease and cancer. Some prices were marked up by hundreds and sometimes thousands of percent, the FTC found.
Will Trump's executive order help lower drug prices?
It's uncertain if Mr. Trump's executive order can make headway on drug prices, and what drugs would even be affected.
Gounder pointed to a similar effort during his first presidency, which only applied to drugs given by providers in hospitals and clinics through Medicare Part B, that failed.
"The last time he proposed this in 2020, this was contested in the federal courts and did not hold up," Gounder said.
To really change how drug prices are negotiated in the U.S., Congress would need to act, she said.
Plus, "Pharmaceutical companies are among the biggest lobbying presences in Washington, D.C. They are, of course, opposed to this," Gounder said.
The pharmaceutical industry has argued that lower prices will affect innovation and development of new medicines.
"Applying other countries' antiquated approach to how they value — and pay — for medicines will stall investment across America's biotech companies, risk access to vital treatments and cures for millions of American patients, and lead to fewer American jobs," John F. Crowley, president of the advocacy group Biotechnology Innovation Organization, said in a statement Monday.
To change how much influence pharmaceutical companies have would also require an act of Congress in the form of campaign finance reform, Gounder said.
Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, a national patient advocacy organization, said in a statement that several aspects of the Mr. Trump's order raise questions.
"This Executive Order is a step in the right direction, but without additional guardrails, it leaves room for pharmaceutical companies to continue gaming the system at the expense of patients," the statement read. "The reality is: drug companies set high prices in the U.S. because U.S. policy lets them — unlike other high income countries that negotiate lower prices."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

D.C. religious leaders blast Trump crackdown as 24/7 federal patrols ramp up
D.C. religious leaders blast Trump crackdown as 24/7 federal patrols ramp up

Axios

time5 minutes ago

  • Axios

D.C. religious leaders blast Trump crackdown as 24/7 federal patrols ramp up

The Trump administration's D.C. crackdown was ramping up National Guard deployment and 24/7 federal patrols on Wednesday night, drawing a sharp rebuke from religious leaders in the U.S. capital. The big picture: President Trump's maintains his unprecedented action in declaring a " crime emergency" in D.C. was necessary, but the interfaith group said his " sweeping language" to justify it is "inaccurate and dehumanizing, increasing the risk of indiscriminate arrests and the use of excessive force." What they're saying:" Even one violent crime is one too many, and all Washingtonians deserve to live in safety. But safety cannot be achieved through political theatre and military force," per the statement from the group that includes Bishop Mariann Budde — who upset Trump at a January prayer service when she implored him to "have mercy" on immigrants and LGBTQ+ people. "It requires honesty and sustained collaboration between government, civic, and private partners — work now being sidelined," the statement reads. "Inflammatory rhetoric distracts from that work, even as the administration has cut more than $1 billion from programs proven to reduce crime, including law enforcement support, addiction and mental health treatment, youth programs, and affordable housing," the statement said. Of note: "The president has likened his intentions for Washington — and possibly other cities — to the harsh measures already used against migrants, tactics that have resulted in thousands detained in inhumane conditions and many deported without due process," they added. The group is calling on the city's political and civic leaders to "reject fear-based governance and work together in a spirit of dignity and respect — so that safety, justice, and compassion prevail in our city." For the record: The D.C. religious leaders involved in the statement, titled "Fear Is Not a Strategy for Safety," along with Budde are: Washington National Cathedral Dean Randy Hollerith; Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt, co-senior rabbi at Adas Israel Congregation; Bishop LaTrelle Miller Easterling, episcopal leader of the Baltimore-Washington and Peninsula-Delaware and Rabbi Abbi Sharofsky director of Intergroup Relations and rabbi in residence at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington; The Rev. John Molina-Moore, general presbyter for National Capital Presbytery; Bishop Leila Ortiz, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Rabbi Jon Roos,Temple Sinai; and Rabbi Susan Shankman, Washington Hebrew Congregation also signed onto the statement. Scenes from D.C. as federal patrols stepped up

Appeals court allows Trump to cut $2 billion in foreign aid
Appeals court allows Trump to cut $2 billion in foreign aid

New York Post

time5 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Appeals court allows Trump to cut $2 billion in foreign aid

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that President Trump can withhold some $2 billion in foreign aid payments, overturning a lower-court order that had blocked the administration's plans to slash disbursements from the US Agency for International Development (USAID). In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia lifted Biden-appointed District Judge Amir Ali's temporary restraining order, which forced USAID to continue making billions of dollars in foreign assistance payments for work already done by organizations the agency contracted with. Ali issued the restraining order in February in response to a lawsuit filed by two nonprofit organizations, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network, after Trump ordered a 90-day pause on foreign aid funding on his first day in office. Advertisement 3 President Trump speaks to the press about deploying federal law enforcement agents in Washington to bolster the local police presence, in the Press Briefing Room at the White House, in Washington, DC, on Aug. 11, 2025. REUTERS Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, noted in the majority opinion Wednesday that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a case against the Trump administration's funding freeze. 'The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims,' Henderson wrote. Advertisement The nonprofits had argued that the president exceeded his authority by virtually abolishing USAID and cutting congressionally approved spending. Henderson, joined in the majority by Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, ruled that under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, only the Government Accountability Office – a congressional watchdog agency – had standing to challenge the president's order to withhold foreign aid. Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, slammed the funding freeze as 'unlawful' and warned it could lead to 'tyranny' in her dissenting opinion. 3 A federal appeals court on Wednesday cleared President Trump to withhold $2 billion in foreign aid, reversing a lower court's block on his plan to cut USAID disbursements. REUTERS Advertisement Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'The court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behavior derails the carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power that serves as the greatest security against tyranny – the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch,' Pan wrote. A White House Office of Management and Budget spokesperson hailed the ruling, telling Reuters it would halt 'radical left dark money groups' from 'maliciously interfering with the president's ability to spend responsibly and to administer foreign aid in a lawful manner in alignment with his America First policies.' The Trump administration had previously petitioned the Supreme Court to lift Ali's restraining order, but in a 5-4 ruling, the high court rejected the bid. Advertisement 3 President Trump speaks during a visit to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, on Aug. 13, 2025. REUTERS In February, the State Department outlined plans to eliminate roughly $60 billion in foreign aid spending and terminate 92% of grants issued by USAID. The figures were included in a State Department memo detailing the results of a foreign aid audit ordered by Trump. The audit identified nearly 15,000 grants and targeted almost 10,000 for elimination — the majority of which were issued by USAID. USAID was one of the first federal agencies that Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by billionaire Elon Musk, targeted for massive cuts based on allegations of widespread waste, fraud and abuse within the agency. In July, Congress approved a White House recession request that clawed back about $8 billion earmarked for USAID.

Maine clinics hope to get blocked Medicaid funds restored as they sue Trump administration over cuts
Maine clinics hope to get blocked Medicaid funds restored as they sue Trump administration over cuts

Associated Press

time6 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Maine clinics hope to get blocked Medicaid funds restored as they sue Trump administration over cuts

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A network of clinics that provides health care in Maine is expected to ask a judge Thursday to restore its Medicaid funding while it fights a Trump administration effort to keep federal money from going to abortion providers. President Donald Trump's policy and tax bill, known as the ' big beautiful bill,' blocked Medicaid money from flowing to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. The parameters in the bill also stopped funding from reaching Maine Family Planning, a much smaller provider that provides health care services in one of the poorest and most rural states in the Northeast. Maine Family Planning filed a federal lawsuit last month seeking to restore reimbursements. Lawyers and representatives for Maine Family Planning say its 18 clinics provide vital services across the state including cervical cancer screenings, contraception and primary care to low-income residents. They also say the funding cut occurred even though Medicaid dollars are not used for its abortion services. 'Without Medicaid, MFP will be forced to stop providing all primary care for all patients — regardless of their insurance status — by the end of October,' the organization said in a statement, adding that about 8,000 patients receive family planning and primary care from the network. It also said many Maine Family Planning clinics 'provide care in very rural areas of the state where there are no other health care providers, and around 70% of their patients rely exclusively on MFP and will not see any other health care provider in a given year.' In court documents, Anne Marie Costello, deputy director for the Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services, called the request to restore funding 'legally groundless' and said it 'must be firmly rejected.' 'The core of its claim asks this Court to revive an invented constitutional right to abortion — jurisprudence that the Supreme Court decisively interred — and to do so in a dispute over federal funds,' Costello said. While advocates of cutting Medicaid for abortion providers focused on Planned Parenthood, the bill did not mention it by name. Instead it cut off reimbursements for organizations that are primarily engaged in family planning services — which generally include things such as contraception, abortion and pregnancy tests — and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The U.S. Senate's parliamentarian rejected a 2017 effort to defund Planned Parenthood because it was written to exclude all other providers by barring payments only to groups that received more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. Maine Family Planning asserts in its legal challenge that the threshold was lowered to $800,000 this time around to make sure Planned Parenthood would not be the only entity affected. It is the only other organization that has come forward publicly to say its funding is at risk.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store