logo
Could Prescription Drug Costs Change for Medicare Users? Experts Weigh In

Could Prescription Drug Costs Change for Medicare Users? Experts Weigh In

Newsweek13-05-2025

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
As President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday that promises to drastically lower prescription drug prices in the U.S., Newsweek spoke with experts to find out what the new order will mean for those on Medicare.
The executive order is aimed at a long-standing issue: Americans pay significantly more for prescription medications than consumers elsewhere, with branded drugs in the U.S. costing around three times more than those in other countries.
Gerard Anderson, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Newsweek: "Our published research shows that Americans pay on average three to four times more for brand name drugs than what people in other industrialized countries pay and for some brand name drugs it is 100 times more."
The Trump administration said it would lower drug costs by tying them to the lowest price paid by any country in the world. The president said in a Truth Social post that the U.S. would no longer pay more than "the Nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the World."
The order could therefore reduce the costs of drugs used by millions of Americans on Medicare. However, whether the change in cost reaches Medicare recipients is another thing. Here's what the experts said.
Americans pay significantly more for prescription medications than consumers elsewhere, with branded drugs in the U.S. costing around three times more than those in other countries.
Americans pay significantly more for prescription medications than consumers elsewhere, with branded drugs in the U.S. costing around three times more than those in other countries.
Robert F. Bukaty/AP
Who Could See Drop In Drug Costs Under Medicare?
Americans who use Medicare Plan B drugs could see a drop in cost, Minal R. Patel, a professor at the School of Public Health, University of Michigan, told Newsweek.
This depends on whether the Trump administration revives a version of the 2020 Most Favored Nation policy proposal, Patel added, a policy that Trump's first administration previously tried and failed to implement following legal challenges.
Trump said in a Truth Social post on Sunday that he would be instituting the policy.
The revival of the policy "would mean Medicare Part B payments for certain high-cost drugs are capped based on the lowest prices paid by other wealthy countries, which is typically much lower," Patel said.
While this could lower drug costs for about 4 million Medicare beneficiaries who use Part B drugs, she added that "it wouldn't affect most people on Medicare or anyone with Part D, employer, Medicaid, or marketplace coverage."
The affected drugs would likely be "typically physician-administered treatments for serious conditions like cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, or macular degeneration," Patel said, adding that these are high-cost medications used by about 7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries.
"Drugs filled at retail pharmacies under Medicare Part D, like insulin or blood pressure medications, would not be included," she said.
How Significant Will Change In Drug Costs Be?
Citing RAND's 2024 report, Jean Bae, a professor at the School of Global Public Health, New York University, told Newsweek that U.S. drug gross prices were on average 278 percent more expensive than the prices in the 33 other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.
"Given that fact, this policy has a potential to substantially lower U.S. brand-name drug prices covered by Part B," Bae said.
However, she added, this assumes that drug companies don't try to "game the system."
Drug companies could limit the impact of the order for recipients by delaying the launch of a new expensive drug in referenced countries or pulling out of such countries altogether, Bae said.
Medicare Part B also only covers drugs that are administered in a physician's office or hospital, rather than taken at home, so differences in cost seen by those on the Medicare program could be marginal.
Bae also pointed to a study by Avelere, which found that less than 1 percent of seniors would have seen reduced out-of-pocket costs as a result of Trump's first-term rule, on which the new order appears to be based.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts

Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back. In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located. The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership. 'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote. They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote. The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted. 'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.' NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward. Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X. 'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote. Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.' 'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Why Universal Health Services (UHS) Shares Are Trading Lower Today
Why Universal Health Services (UHS) Shares Are Trading Lower Today

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why Universal Health Services (UHS) Shares Are Trading Lower Today

Shares of hospital management company Universal Health Services (NYSE:UHS) fell 5.7% in the afternoon session after Chief Financial Officer Steve Filton noted during a recent conference that procedural volumes (an important driver of hospital revenue) "have been slower to recover back to historical levels than we might have imagined." Filton also voiced concern over the Trump administration's proposed federal spending bill, particularly its implications for healthcare funding. Since UHS derives a significant portion of its revenue from government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, the anticipated cuts to Medicaid could significantly affect the company, especially in regions with high dependency on public healthcare funding. The shares closed the day at $177.76, down 6.2% from previous close. The stock market overreacts to news, and big price drops can present good opportunities to buy high-quality stocks. Is now the time to buy Universal Health Services? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Universal Health Services's shares are not very volatile and have only had 8 moves greater than 5% over the last year. In that context, today's move indicates the market considers this news meaningful, although it might not be something that would fundamentally change its perception of the business. The previous big move we wrote about was 28 days ago when the stock gained 5.9% after the major indices popped (Nasdaq +3.4%, S&P 500 +2.5%) in response to the positive outcome of U.S.-China trade negotiations, as both sides agreed to pause some tariffs for 90 days, signaling a potential turning point in ongoing tensions. This rollback cuts U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods to 30% and Chinese tariffs on U.S. imports to 10%, giving companies breathing room to reset inventories and supply chains. However, President Trump clarified that tariffs could go "substantially higher" if a full deal with China wasn't reached during the 90-day pause, but not all the way back to the previous levels. Still, the agreement has cooled fears of a prolonged trade war, helping stabilize expectations for global growth and trade flows and fueling renewed optimism. The optimism appeared concentrated in key trade-sensitive sectors, particularly technology, retail, and industrials, as lower tariffs reduce cost pressures and restore cross-border demand. Universal Health Services is down 1.1% since the beginning of the year, and at $177.77 per share, it is trading 26.4% below its 52-week high of $241.52 from September 2024. Investors who bought $1,000 worth of Universal Health Services's shares 5 years ago would now be looking at an investment worth $1,628. Unless you've been living under a rock, it should be obvious by now that generative AI is going to have a huge impact on how large corporations do business. While Nvidia and AMD are trading close to all-time highs, we prefer a lesser-known (but still profitable) semiconductor stock benefiting from the rise of AI. Click here to access our free report on our favorite semiconductor growth story. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

No drug price pledges in talks with US government, Pfizer CEO says
No drug price pledges in talks with US government, Pfizer CEO says

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

No drug price pledges in talks with US government, Pfizer CEO says

STORY: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said Monday that he and other drug companies met with the Trump administration to discuss lowering U.S. drug prices but no commitments have been made. He made the comments at a Goldman Sachs healthcare conference. Last month President Trump issued an executive order directing drugmakers to lower the prices of their medicines to align with what other countries pay. According to the order, the administration was to set "Most Favored Nation" price targets within 30 days. The Department of Health and Human Services has said it expects drugmakers in the U.S. to set prices for their products at the lowest price paid by other high-income countries. Bourla said he didn't know what the companies would hear in 30 days and added the meetings with the administration so far were cordial but (quote) "not digging into the substance." It is unclear what mechanism the U.S. government will use to lower drug prices - analysts and legal experts have said the policy will be difficult to implement. Bourla said he is hopeful that, given U.S. pressure on European countries to pay more, prices there could increase. He said that if the U.S. resorts to price controls, Pfizer could consider not making drugs available for government reimbursement in some countries if prices don't increase there. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store