Trump's executive order seeks to lower prescription drug prices, including for Medicare
April 17 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump has ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to standardize Medicare payments in an effort to curb prescription drug prices, including with private insurers.
"Combined, these bold actions were delivering real savings for American patients and set the foundation to dramatically narrow the price disparity between the United States and foreign nations over time," said the executive order that Trump signed Tuesday.
This directive to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comes as Trump seeks to impose specific tariffs on pharmaceutical imports on top of other ones, including a baseline 10% for most trading partners. Market research group Black Book Research found that 84% of experts predict that prices for medical treatments and drugs will rise due to the tariffs, according to a survey released in February.
Between January 2022 and January 2023, prescription drug prices rose more than 15% and reached an average of $590 per drug, according to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2023. Of the 4,200 drugs on that list, 46% of the increases exceeded the rate of inflation.
In 2024, the United States imported $213 billion in medicines, which is 2 1/2 times higher than a decade earlier, with Germany, India, Ireland, Singapore and Switzerland major suppliers of pharmaceuticals.
Major drug companies outside the United States include Teva in Israel, Novo Nordisk in Denmark, AstraZeneca in Britain and Novartis in Switzerland. U.S. companies are Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Roche and Johnson and Johnson.
"We don't make our own drugs anymore," Trump told reporters Monday. "The drug companies are in Ireland, and they're in lots of other places, China."
Trump wants to equalize Medicare payments for drugs, including the treatment of cancer, regardless of where the patients get care. The White House in a fact sheet said the directive can lower costs by as much as 60%.
Also, Medicare payment for certain prescription drugs that hospitals pay for would be matched, which can result in 35% lower costs than what the government pays to acquire those medications.
And sought: lowering insulin prices for low-income patients or those who are uninsured to as little as 3 cents and injectable epinephrine for treating allergic reactions to as low as $15.
In 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act, which included requiring Medicare Part D plans to charge no more than $35 per month for all covered insulin products, and also limits cost sharing for insulin covered under Part B to $35 per month.
The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program allows Medicare to directly engage in negotiating prescription prices with drug companies. Private insurers do this.
Trump wants to improve on the 22% in savings that the Biden administration achieved, according to a White House fact sheet.
"The guidance shall improve the transparency of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, prioritize the selection of prescription drugs with high costs to the Medicare program, and minimize any negative impacts of the maximum fair price on pharmaceutical innovation within the United States," the order said.
Also, the Food and Drug Administration was asked to work with Congress to quicken Medicare price negotiations for biosimilars, which are complex biologic medicine, compared with small molecule drugs, typically pills.
"My first term included numerous significant actions, including some of the most aggressive in recent history, to deliver lower prescription drug prices to American patients," Trump said in the order. "The message was clear: no longer would the executive branch sit idly by as pharmaceutical manufacturers charged patients in our Nation more than those in other countries for the exact same prescription drugs, often made in the exact same places."
During Trump's first administration, states were allowed to more easily import drugs from Canada and required federally qualified health centers, to pass along discounts they receive on insulin and EpiPens to their patients. The Biden administration ended the rule for health centers, citing the excessive administrative costs and burdens imposed on them.
CMN reported the measures didn't result in making medications more affordable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies
WASHINGTON — In just a few short months, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun to transform U.S. health policy: shrinking staff at health agencies, restructuring the focus of some regulators and researchers, changing Covid vaccine regulations and reshaping the mission of his department to focus more on alternative medicine. The directives are all part of the same issue set that drove a slice of health-conscious, left-leaning Americans to eventually vote for a Republican president whose favorite meal is from McDonald's, Trump and Kennedy catered to a type of voter who has grown distrustful of America's health care establishment — but possibly fomented a new type of distrust in federal health policy along the way. Bernadine Francis, a lifelong Democrat who backed Joe Biden for president in 2020 before supporting Donald Trump in 2024, told NBC News in an interview that she approves of Kennedy's efforts so far, despite his 'hands being tied' by entrenched forces in the administration and in Congress. 'From what I have seen so far with what RFK has been trying to do,' she said, 'I am really, really proud of what he's doing.' Francis is among the voters who left the Democratic Party and voted for Trump because 'nothing else mattered' apart from public health, which they — like Kennedy — felt was going in the wrong direction. Concerns about chemicals in food and toxins in the environment, long championed by Democrats, has become a galvanizing issue to a key portion of Trump's Republican Party, complete with an oversaturation of information that in some cases hasn't been proven. It's wrapped up, as well, in concerns about the Covid vaccine, which was accelerated under Trump, administered under Biden and weaponized by anti-vaccine activists like Kennedy amid lockdowns and firings in the wake of the devastating pandemic. 'We knew in order to get RFK in there so he can help with the situation that we have in the health industry, we knew we had to do this,' said Francis, a retired Washington, D.C., public school administrator, who said she left her 'beloved' career because she had refused the vaccine. 'It seemed to me, as soon as [Biden] became president, the vaccine was mandated, and that was when I lost all hope in the Democrats,' Francis told NBC News, referring to vaccination mandates put in place by the Biden administration for a large portion of the federal workforce during the height of the pandemic. There are not currently any federal Covid vaccine mandates. There have been 1,228,393 confirmed Covid deaths in the United States since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy's hand-picked commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a John Hopkins scientist and researcher, told NBC News in an interview that he wants to transform the agency, which he said faced 'corruption' over influence from the pharmaceutical and food industries. 'I mean, you look at the food pyramid, it was not based on what's best for you, it was based on what companies wanted you to buy,' he said, referring to the 1992 and later iterations of official government nutritional guidance. He said there would be 'entirely new nutrition guidance' released later this year, as soon as this summer. He praised the FDA's mission of research and regulation, saying the agency is 'incredibly well-oiled, and we've got the trains running on time.' He also highlighted the 75-page 'Make America Healthy Again' commission report — which focused on ultraprocessed foods and toxins in the environment — as having set 'the agenda for research' at the FDA, HHS and agencies overseeing social safety net programs such as Medicare and food stamps moving forward. (The MAHA report initially cited some studies that didn't exist, a mistake that Kennedy adviser Calley Means said was a 'great disservice' to their mission.) 'I think there's a lot we're going to learn. For example, the microbiome, which gets attention in the MAHA report, needs to be on the map. We don't even talk about it in our medical circles,' Makary said. 'The microbiome, food is medicine, the immune response that happens when chemicals that don't appear in nature go down our GI tract.' Pressed on other areas of the administration, like the Environmental Protection Agency, making decisions that run counter to the pro-regulatory ideas presented in the MAHA report, Makary said he can 'only comment on the FDA' where they are 'committed to Secretary Kennedy's vision.' But Kennedy's public health agenda goes beyond looking at the food supply and chemicals. Recently, Kennedy said in a video posted on X last month that the Covid vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a change in CDC guidance that skipped the normal public review period. Days later, after critics questioned the decision and raised concerns over a lack of public data behind the move, the administration updated its guidance again, urging parents to consult with their doctors instead. Pressed about the confusion and whether Americans are now trading one side of public distrust in the health system for another, Makary defended Kennedy, who has been criticized for spreading misinformation. 'My experience with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is that he listens. He listens to myself, he listens to Jay Bhattacharya, listens to Dr. Mehmet Oz, he listens to a host of scientists that are giving him guidance,' Makary argued, referring to the director of the National Institutes of Health and the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, respectively. 'So he may have big questions, but the questions he's asking are the questions most Americans are asking.' Dr. Dawn Mussallem, a breast cancer oncologist and integrative medicine doctor — a physician who combines conventional treatments with research-based alternative therapies — has tried to help her patients wade through medical misinformation they encounter online and in their social circles. Mussallem has an incredible story of personal survival: While in medical school, she was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and, after conventional therapies like chemo saved her life, was diagnosed with heart failure. After undergoing a heart transplant, Mussallem ran a 26-mile marathon just one year later. 'I learned a lot in medical school, but nothing compared to what I learned being a patient,' said Mussallem, who dedicates, on average, 90 minutes each in one-on-one sessions with her patients. 'This is not about any one political choice. But we know lifestyle matters.' For example, a new study from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that finds eating food that lowers inflammation in the body may help people with advanced colon cancer survive longer. Mussallem's mission, along with her colleagues, is to elevate the modern medicine that saved her life, as well as encouraging her patients to live healthy lifestyles, including regular exercise, minimally processed foods, less screen time, more social connection and better sleep. But politics do get in the way for millions of Americans who are inundated daily with social media influencers and 'nonmedical experts,' as Mussallem puts it, who stoke fear in her patients. 'Patients come in with all these questions, fears,' she said. 'I've heard this many times from patients, that their nervous system is affected by what they're seeing happening in government.' Mussallem acknowledges that 'a lot of individuals out there' have questioned traditional medicine. For her, it isn't one or the other — it's both. 'We have to trust the conventional medicine,' she said. 'With the conventional care that marches right alongside more of an integrative modality to look at the root causes of disease, as well as to help to optimize with lifestyle, is where we need to be.' This article was originally published on
