Latest news with #JournalofEconomicPerspectives
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
We can't price control our way to cheaper, more available drugs
The White House just announced a sweeping plan that could ultimately cap U.S. drug prices at lower levels seen in other developed countries. Administration officials have good intentions. They're trying to shake up the plainly unacceptable status quo, in which American "citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill, from the same factory, effectively subsidizing socialism abroad," as President Trump put it. But good intentions aren't enough to prevent dire unintended consequences. This proposal could largely eliminate the incentives for biotech companies to invest in new medicines, ultimately resulting in millions of premature deaths and lost jobs. Thankfully, there are several alternative strategies that could meaningfully save Americans at the pharmacy without destroying our biotech sector. Foreign price fixing is a real problem. Most other wealthy countries artificially cap the cost of medicines. Those countries know they'll get away with it, because as economist Craig Garthwaite explains in a recent paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, many foreign countries are "too small to be central to the drug development investment decisions of innovative firms." In other words, drug companies book the majority of their profits in America. So companies rationally calculate that it's better to earn some marginal revenue in smaller countries — even if those countries demand arbitrarily low prices — than to unsuccessfully demand free-market prices, face rejection from those countries' socialized healthcare systems, and earn no additional revenue at all. Hicks: Why tariffs lead to recession, even after Trump caved to China It's entirely unfair that Americans are forced to disproportionately shoulder the majority of the world's research and development burden. But adopting other countries' artificially low prices won't fix the problem. It'd just make it impossible for biotech companies to recover their immense R&D costs — and thus destroy the incentives to develop new treatments altogether. This isn't just a theoretical concern. Europe used to dominate the global biotech industry for most of the 20th century, accounting for more than half of all new drugs developed — but America surged ahead by the late 1990s after European policymakers kneecapped their domestic innovators with price controls. And while America historically resisted the temptation to impose price controls on medicines — at least until the Inflation Reduction Act — we have imposed them on medical devices before, with disastrous results. A new National Bureau of Economic Research paper examined what happened when Medicare slashed reimbursements for certain medical devices by more than 60%. Innovation fell off a cliff. Patent filings dropped 75%. New product launches fell 25%. The executive order would replicate that mistake on a far larger scale. If it takes effect, companies will simply stop investing in most new drug research. It's simple economics — kill the potential return, and you kill the risk-taking too. That'd come at a massive human cost. New drugs have been responsible for more than a third of the decline in cardiovascular deaths since 1990. They've turned certain cancers from imminent death sentences into manageable, even curable, conditions. Now we're seeing promising treatments for obesity, ALS, and rare genetic disorders. Imagine telling families that future breakthroughs won't be coming — because we chose to import foreign price controls. There are smarter ways to lower prices without compromising innovation. First, we must eliminate the waste in our health care system. More than half of every dollar spent on brand-name drugs doesn't go to the companies that make them — it's absorbed by a complicated supply chain that rakes in hundreds of billions from hidden rebates and markups, with no requirements to pass savings onto patients. Opinion: Indiana prides itself on work. What happens when AI takes our jobs? Policymakers should demand transparency, ban abusive practices, and ensure that negotiated discounts reach the patients who actually buy the medicine. Second, we should tackle the foreign pricing problem through trade negotiations. Other wealthy nations should have to pay market rates for medicines if they want access to American markets. The White House is right to be angry about foreign price fixing. But we need to fight it without destroying one of America's most successful industries in the process. Dr. Larry Bucshon, a cardiothoracic surgeon, served as a Republican U.S. representative for Indiana's 8th congressional district from 2011 to 2025. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Trump's drug price plan would hurt biotech firms, consumers | Opinion
Indianapolis Star
21-05-2025
- Business
- Indianapolis Star
We can't price control our way to cheaper, more available drugs
The White House just announced a sweeping plan that could ultimately cap U.S. drug prices at lower levels seen in other developed countries. Administration officials have good intentions. They're trying to shake up the plainly unacceptable status quo, in which American "citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill, from the same factory, effectively subsidizing socialism abroad," as President Trump put it. But good intentions aren't enough to prevent dire unintended consequences. This proposal could largely eliminate the incentives for biotech companies to invest in new medicines, ultimately resulting in millions of premature deaths and lost jobs. Thankfully, there are several alternative strategies that could meaningfully save Americans at the pharmacy without destroying our biotech sector. Foreign price fixing is a real problem. Most other wealthy countries artificially cap the cost of medicines. Those countries know they'll get away with it, because as economist Craig Garthwaite explains in a recent paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, many foreign countries are "too small to be central to the drug development investment decisions of innovative firms." In other words, drug companies book the majority of their profits in America. So companies rationally calculate that it's better to earn some marginal revenue in smaller countries — even if those countries demand arbitrarily low prices — than to unsuccessfully demand free-market prices, face rejection from those countries' socialized healthcare systems, and earn no additional revenue at all. Hicks: Why tariffs lead to recession, even after Trump caved to China It's entirely unfair that Americans are forced to disproportionately shoulder the majority of the world's research and development burden. But adopting other countries' artificially low prices won't fix the problem. It'd just make it impossible for biotech companies to recover their immense R&D costs — and thus destroy the incentives to develop new treatments altogether. This isn't just a theoretical concern. Europe used to dominate the global biotech industry for most of the 20th century, accounting for more than half of all new drugs developed — but America surged ahead by the late 1990s after European policymakers kneecapped their domestic innovators with price controls. And while America historically resisted the temptation to impose price controls on medicines — at least until the Inflation Reduction Act — we have imposed them on medical devices before, with disastrous results. A new National Bureau of Economic Research paper examined what happened when Medicare slashed reimbursements for certain medical devices by more than 60%. Innovation fell off a cliff. Patent filings dropped 75%. New product launches fell 25%. The executive order would replicate that mistake on a far larger scale. If it takes effect, companies will simply stop investing in most new drug research. It's simple economics — kill the potential return, and you kill the risk-taking too. That'd come at a massive human cost. New drugs have been responsible for more than a third of the decline in cardiovascular deaths since 1990. They've turned certain cancers from imminent death sentences into manageable, even curable, conditions. Now we're seeing promising treatments for obesity, ALS, and rare genetic disorders. Imagine telling families that future breakthroughs won't be coming — because we chose to import foreign price controls. There are smarter ways to lower prices without compromising innovation. First, we must eliminate the waste in our health care system. More than half of every dollar spent on brand-name drugs doesn't go to the companies that make them — it's absorbed by a complicated supply chain that rakes in hundreds of billions from hidden rebates and markups, with no requirements to pass savings onto patients. Opinion: Indiana prides itself on work. What happens when AI takes our jobs? Policymakers should demand transparency, ban abusive practices, and ensure that negotiated discounts reach the patients who actually buy the medicine. Second, we should tackle the foreign pricing problem through trade negotiations. Other wealthy nations should have to pay market rates for medicines if they want access to American markets. The White House is right to be angry about foreign price fixing. But we need to fight it without destroying one of America's most successful industries in the process.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Detroit business owners concerned over Trump tariffs
DETROIT (FOX 2) - A small business in Detroit is thriving five years later after struggling through COVID restrictions during the pandemic in 2020. But after threats of tariffs from the Trump administration, Detroit business owners are now facing a possible challenge. The backstory FOX 2 first met small business entrepreneur Nadonya Muslim in 2020, after Governor Gretchen Whitmer allowed retail businesses to reopen under certain guidelines. Five years later in 2025, that business is thriving. Her boutique business is back on track, but when Nadonya heard the Trump Administration announce tariffs on several countries, including China and Mexico, she saw it as a potential road block. "We get a lot of our products from overseas mainly China, Canada, Pakistan," she said. Big picture view Tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods that are paid by the importer. The purpose of a tariff is to raise the price of imported goods and services to discourage consumption and get people to purchase more local products to stimulate the nation's economy. The idea is to encourage more local production so that imported goods can be replaced by domestic products, raising revenue for the government. According to a report featured in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, it is common for U.S. presidents to introduce protectionist measures — like heavy tariffs — early on in their terms. In 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on $283 billion of US imports in 2018, with rates ranging between 10% and 50%. In response, several countries including China, Russia, Canada, Mexico and the EU all filed cases against the U.S. with the World Trade Organization. Many of those countries also retaliated with tariffs of their own. Michigan's auto industry, farmers, and the state's budget surplus could all take a financial hit. Governor Gretchen Whitmer said last December that the auto industry is something she's very worried about. "That's the nightmare scenario for all of us," Whitmer said in December, ahead of Trump taking office. Some local restaurants are also wondering if they will feel the heat. As President Donald Trump agrees to a 30-day pause on tariffs against Mexico and Canada, China fought back against U.S. tariffs with levies on some U.S. goods. Analysts say Michigan restaurants are confronting other concerns as owners are dealing with tipped worker pay increases and a potential lack of staff. Meanwhile, these entrepreneurs say they will fight to survive. The Source FOX 2 talked with Detroit business owners and used information from previous stories.
