Latest news with #RandCorporation
Euractiv
24-07-2025
- Business
- Euractiv
Roche steps in as Trump aims for 1500% drug price cuts
'We're gonna get the drug prices down – not 30% or 40%. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000%, 1,500%,' said the US president. Euractiv is part of the Trust Project Thomas Mangin Euractiv Jul 24, 2025 15:17 2 min. read News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Amid a crusade against overpriced medicine, US President Donald Trump has promised to bring drug prices down by 1,500%. While the world still puzzles over his maths, the industry appears ready to offer solutions. 'We're gonna get the drug prices down – not 30% or 40%, which would be great. Not 50% or 60%. No, we're gonna get them down 1,000%, 600%, 500%, 1,500%,' said the US president at the White House on 22 July 22. 'Numbers that are not even thought to be achievable, because I've used a certain talent that I have,' he added. The pharmaceutical industry remains one of President Trump's primary targets. In his first term, Trump vowed to lower drug prices – but with little effect. A study by the Rand Corporation estimated that in 2024, drug prices in the United States were 2.7 times higher than in the 32 other OECD countries. The U.S. president continues to put pressure on big pharma groups and is pushing them to relocate to the United States, notably by threatening to impose tariffs of up to 200%. Several European companies have announced massive investments across the Atlantic in recent months. On 22 July, AstraZeneca unveiled a $50 billion investment plan in the United States by 2030. In April, Roche announced a similar investment for production as well as research and development in the U.S. 'We hope the U.S. government will see, through all the investments we and other companies are making, that pharmaceutical firms want to produce the medicines needed in the United States, for the United States,' said Schinecker. (bms, aw)
ABC News
24-07-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Can Trump contain China's AI boom?
Sam Hawley: For so long, the tech bros of Silicon Valley have dominated the AI race. Now there's a boom underway in China, giving them a run for their money and Donald Trump doesn't like it. Today, Kyle Chan from the global policy think tank, the Rand Corporation, on why the president is so desperate for the US to beat Beijing. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Sam Hawley: Kyle, there's a global race going on right now to be the world leader in AI. This is a race basically to make technologies that rival the human brain, right? Kyle Chan: Yeah. So there really is this global race. And in particular, you have the US and China with many of the world's best AI models. And it's quite impressive to see almost every day, it feels like a new model coming out with new advanced capabilities. So, yes,getting close, if not even beating what we can do ourselves. Sam Hawley: Yeah, it's fascinating to watch how quickly this is moving. Donald Trump, US President: I don't like the name artificial anything because it's not artificial. It's genius. It's pure genius. Sam Hawley: Donald Trump, of course, wants to make sure that America wins this race. Donald Trump, US President: America is the country that started the AI race. And as president of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it. We're going to work hard. We're going to win it. Sam Hawley: He even gave a speech with that title, winning the AI race. Donald Trump, US President: Because we will not allow any foreign nation to beat us. Our children will not live on a planet controlled by the algorithms of the adversaries advancing values and interests contrary to our own. Sam Hawley: He's pretty invested in this, isn't he? Kyle Chan: That's right. Yeah, this has been a big topic throughout his administration so far. I think a lot of what US policy is focused on, including the current Trump administration, is on winning the race to AGI. I think there's a strong sense that this could be a pivotal turning point. Sam Hawley: Remind me, what is AGI? Kyle Chan: So artificial general intelligence. There's this idea that perhaps one day it could reach a point where it could replicate or even exceed the abilities of humans to do, say, certain kinds of office work or certain kinds of research. This could even extend into areas like military capabilities, like autonomous weapon systems, for example. Reaching this stage where AI is as good as, if not better than, human reasoning. Sam Hawley: So we might not be needed actually anymore. We won't need to think anymore, right? Kyle Chan: We'll see. Sam Hawley: Exactly. All right. Well, Kyle, of course, up until now, the US has really dominated this market. All the big tech giants who've developed AI, things like ChatGPT, they're sitting there in Silicon Valley. Kyle Chan: Oh, yeah. So you have OpenAI, currently led by Sam Altman. You have Google, which has been coming out with a number of various sort of cutting edge models with its Gemini series. You have Claude, which is very well known from Anthropic, well known for its coding capabilities. You have Meta as well as xAI. So there's actually quite a quite a large roster of strong American AI companies. Sam Hawley: So for many, many years, America's really led the world when it comes to AI development. But as you say, China has been creeping up on it. And that has the US administration a bit worried. It even tried to stop Beijing's advancement in this space, didn't it? By banning Nvidia from selling advanced chips to China. Just remind me what happened then. Kyle Chan: Yes, that's right. So this was actually in the Biden administration. You had very strong export controls placed on especially Nvidia's more advanced chips. And so here you actually have several rounds of downgrading of what kinds of Nvidia chips could be exported in China. Sam Hawley: So the US, in part, was saying that it was deeply concerned that AI could be used by the Chinese for military purposes. Kyle Chan: That's right. Yeah. And, you know, to be sure, it was also part of this broader idea that advanced semiconductors in general can be used for a whole range of important applications. So in addition to AI, there are also more direct military implications for this ban. Sam Hawley: All right. So Biden brought in this ban to stop these really advanced chips from being exported from the United States to China. But intriguingly, Trump just recently has now removed that ban. Do we know why he did that and how significant is that decision? Kyle Chan: Yes. What's interesting is I think whereas before people expected maybe a continuous ratcheting up of these export controls, Trump has reversed the ban on the H20 chips. Interestingly, a new line of argument has gotten a lot of prominence, which is that Nvidia and other US tech companies who sort of, you know, quote, unquote, sell the picks and shovels, that is, build the infrastructure and build the sort of underlying platforms for AI development, that American companies should be the ones who are dominant in the world and that people should build on the American tech stack as it were, rather than cede, say, the Chinese market to its competitors like Huawei, which is also developing its own AI chips. So the idea here was that rather than block out the Chinese market entirely, that the US should stay engaged, at least in terms of providing some kind of sweet spot of infrastructure, but not not too advanced in order to actually accelerate China's efforts. Sam Hawley: And that's the argument that the Nvidia boss, Jensen Huang, has been making to Donald Trump. Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO: This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for America to have AI technology leadership. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for China to have AI leadership. And if we want to be a leader, we have to engage developers all over the world. We have to engage markets all over the world. Sam Hawley: So the best way to beat China at AI is to actually help China to compete. Have I got that right? Kyle Chan: Yes. Yes. The logic, it can be hard to parse out sometimes, but yes, this is one of the main arguments. Sam Hawley: All right. So, Kyle, Donald Trump, he's delivered this speech outlining the importance of the US dominating the AI market. Donald Trump, US President: America needs new data centres, new semiconductor and chip manufacturing facilities, new power plants and transmission lines. And under my leadership, we're going to get that job done. Sam Hawley: But as we mentioned, in China, it's full speed ahead. There really is a boom going on there right now, isn't there? Kyle Chan: Absolutely. Yeah. So, I mean, everyone now knows about DeepSeek and the DeepSeek moment. News report: The release of a high performing Chinese rival to chat GPT has sent shockwaves through the global tech sector and caused US tech stocks to fall. Kyle Chan: A Chinese AI model for the first time seemed to be almost on par with the US leading models. And this was done at a fraction of the cost in terms of compute. And this was done sort of in defiance of US efforts to put on export controls and to restrict Chinese compute capacity. But DeepSeek is really the tip of the iceberg. So there's a whole set of very competitive Chinese AI models. You think about Alibaba's Qwen, you think about Tencent, ByteDance. There's Moonshot, a whole host of startups as well. Most of these companies now, they all have their own sort of chatbot like chat GPT, where anyone can download the app or go to the website and just start chatting directly with the AI model, the underlying model itself. And so what's interesting is that it's not just one company or one startup per se. It's actually a whole sort of lineup, in a way, a Chinese team competing with the US one. Sam Hawley: And these AI apps, what they haven't needed, that chip that was banned, I guess, from being exported from the United States. China's done it on its own, has it? Kyle Chan: Well, yeah. So it's complicated because actually many of these Chinese AI companies, they do use Nvidia chips. They do, including the chip that was banned, the H20. At the same time, though, they're trying to experiment and test Chinese domestic alternatives, knowing very well that, you know, in the long run, they may no longer have access to Nvidia's GPUs. So there's a question right now within the Chinese tech community, Chinese AI policy about how hard to push for this domestic alternative versus to continue to rely on what are otherwise better performing Nvidia chips. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Kyle, just unpack for me now. What's actually driving this AI boom in China? Because it has a lot to do with the Communist Party's backing of this, doesn't it, of the government's funding of it. Kyle Chan: That's right. So what's interesting is that Beijing is pouring resources into the entire, what I call the entire AI tech stack. So they're investing in not only chips, as we mentioned earlier, but in the rollout of data centres, often tied to renewable energy. They are investing in the development of foundation models. They have special local government AI labs. And then all the way to applications, especially in so-called hard tech areas like robotics and industrial automation. So you can see sort of this full range of support. And of course, at the very heart of this, I think is ultimately the emphasis on talent development and basic research. So a lot of the universities in China, many of them are producing really world class AI developers. Sam Hawley: And we've seen this before, haven't we? From the Chinese government when it wanted to boost the EV market. It did the same thing. It did the same thing with solar and it works. Kyle Chan: Yeah, that's right. They've tried this playbook before and they're going to try it again. But the funny thing is, yeah, AI is sort of a different beast. And so, you know, for example, just in the past year, we have this shift towards reason models. And that already has thrown a bit of a wrench into some of the industrial policy efforts that China has made in AI. So some of the data centre build out that was government backed. You know, there's a question now about whether that is fit for purpose with the shift towards this sort of new AI paradigm. And it could change again. So it's a fast moving space. Sam Hawley: All right. So, Kyle, there is this race going on between the United States and China to dominate AI development. But tell me, why is that so important? Why does it matter who wins this race in the end? Kyle Chan: So the AI race, I think, is especially important now because it has implications for economic growth, long term productivity. There's a sense both in the US and in China that AI could help boost a whole range of sectors. From education, health care, biotech, drug discovery, manufacturing services. So on the one hand, you have this sort of economic implication. On the other hand, there are military implications. So AI could be used for developing autonomous systems. You think about drones or swarms of drones that are able to navigate on the battlefield on their own. Or you think about missile defence capabilities that might use AI or satellite technology that might use AI. So there are both security and economic repercussions for, you know, the question of sort of who is ahead in the race for AI. Sam Hawley: Yeah. And I note that Sam Altman from OpenAI says he wants to make sure that democratic AI wins over authoritarian AI. What do you make of that? Kyle Chan: Yeah, that's right. I mean, it's an interesting idea because right now there's also this battle over sort of diffusion and who can get their models out into the world. And so it's not just a matter of, you know, who has the best model, but also which model is more widely used. And I think right now what's interesting is a lot of Chinese models are open source or at least open weights. That is people, companies, organisations, individuals can download these models and run them locally, run them themselves. And what this means is that a Chinese type of AI might end up diffusing more broadly, perhaps maybe outside of the U.S. into other countries. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, it's a fascinating battle. Kyle, what do you think? What's your prediction? Who's going to come out on top in the end? Kyle Chan: In a sense, I do see that with some of the industrial policy in China, with some of the government support, as well as perhaps more importantly, different sorts of attitudes towards AI in China. There are some surveys that have shown that people in China more broadly seem to be more open to adopting AI and see it as a more positive force in society. That could play a key role in rolling out and incorporating AI into more areas of life. So that's one area that I would watch very closely. Sam Hawley: Kyle Chan is a postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University and an adjunct researcher at the Rand Corporation. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Sam Dunn. Audio production by Cinnamon Nippard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
Atlantic
22-07-2025
- Health
- Atlantic
How Medicaid Cuts Will Bleed Emergency Medicine
If you have a heart attack in the United States, you might assume that an ambulance will bring you to an ER and its staff will take care of you. But hospital closures over the past 20 years and physician shortages were undermining that assumption even before President Donald Trump signed his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' into law. Now that legislation—which will cut Medicaid spending by an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years, puts the entire emergency-medicine safety net at risk. The destabilizing effects will be felt not only by those who lose access to Medicaid, but also by those who have private health insurance. As an ER doctor in New York City, I am terrified about the coming cuts. A recent study from the Rand Corporation confirms that ERs across the entire country are dangerously overstretched and underfunded. About a fifth of emergency visits each year are never paid for, amounting to nearly $5.9 billion in care costs absorbed by hospitals. The uninsured and underinsured were already more likely to have to seek treatment in the ER when they fell ill. With the changes to Medicaid eligibility, their ranks are set to swell. Medicaid provides coverage to more than 71 million Americans; in addition, the Children's Health Insurance Program (which provides low-cost coverage for children of families that do not qualify for Medicaid) covers 7 million children. Trump's legislation is expected to deprive som 12 million people of Medicaid by 2034, and an additional 5 million will lose insurance because of changes to provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The cost of replacing this lost coverage for some 17 million Americans will be especially daunting for low-income families: On average, health-insurance premiums add up to nearly $9,000 a year, whereas a full-time minimum-wage job generates just $15,000. I went into frontline medicine to help people, not to bankrupt them—yet I am acutely aware that medical debt is a major factor in nearly three-fifths of bankruptcy cases in the United States. When someone who does not have insurance comes into the ER, I am forced to discuss with the patient what necessary care they may have to delay or forgo if they cannot afford it. These conversations will become only more frequent when millions of people are kicked off their health insurance. Jonathan Chait: The cynical Republican plan to cut Medicaid The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, one of the most important public-health measures ever enacted in the United States, mandates that every emergency department must provide treatment to anyone who comes through the door, regardless of their ability to pay or their insurance status. 'People have access to health care in America,' President George W. Bush once declared. 'After all, you just go to an emergency room.' But the treatment mandate is unfunded. Bush neglected to say that patients are still charged for that visit once they receive the care they need. When they can't pay, they get hounded by a collection agency. If they still can't pay, the hospital ends up eating the cost. The downstream effect is lower staffing and fewer services. The burden of uncompensated emergency care unquestionably contributes to hospital closures. Even before Trump's huge budget-reconciliation bill passed, many people living in rural communities were at risk of losing access to health care. Of 25 hospitals that closed last year, 10 were in rural America, the industry publication Becker's Hospital Review reported; according to a nonpartisan health-policy center, another 700 rural hospitals are financially distressed and at risk of closure. Nearly half of all children and one in five adults in small towns and country areas rely on Medicaid or CHIP; half of all births in these communities are financed by Medicaid. This makes rural hospitals highly dependent on the reimbursement that they receive from Medicaid for treating those patients. The more patients who lose coverage, the greater the threat to these institutions. A report from the National Rural Health Association and the research firm Manatt Health finds that, because of Trump's BBB, rural hospitals 'will lose 21 cents out of every dollar' they'd previously received in Medicaid funding. The inevitable result will be more service cuts and more hospital closures, which will endanger everyone in these areas—even people with insurance. The rational course would be for the government to put more resources into Medicaid, so that patients in need could access care in an optimal setting, instead of visiting the ER, where treatment is more expensive to provide and less comprehensive. Supporters of the BBB purport to have data showing that patients with Medicaid misuse the ER by seeking unnecessary treatment, and they argue that visit volume will go down once they are uninsured. My own experience is that although uninsured patients see me less, they typically show up much sicker—and need more resource-intensive care. One of my regular patients has both Crohn's disease and a debilitating psychiatric condition. He has no family support, usually lives in a shelter, and only sometimes has a job. After requiring an emergency intestinal surgery last year, he now comes into the ER every few days to have his ostomy bag changed, because the only clinic that takes Medicaid is in another borough. In an ideal world, he would have access to a clinic with wound-care nursing and social support. In this far-from-ideal world, taking away his Medicaid will not stop him from having chronic disease. This patient could try to skip visits, but he will have to come to the ER when he gets an infection or his illness flares again, and then he will also be stuck with a bill that will hurt his credit rating and set back his efforts to pull himself out of poverty. The hospital, too, will be worse off—forced to absorb the cost of his treatment when previously it did receive at least small payments for his visits. In short, any appearance of less demand on health-care resources is a mirage; the real outcome will be worse health for the patient and higher costs for his health-care providers. Imagine various such scenarios replicated all across the country, when millions of people lose Medicaid coverage. In a letter to Senate leadership last month, the American Medical Association's chief executive, James Madara, warned that the proposed law 'could lead to delays in treatment, increases in emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and other expensive forms of care.' His appeal went unheeded, as Congress passed the legislation on largely party-line votes. As Alison Haddock, the president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, put it: 'The very idea of emergency medicine as we now know it—lifesaving care available for anyone at any time—is under direct threat.' The threat is dire, but a stay is still possible. The majority of health-care cuts in the act will not go into effect until after the midterm elections in November 2026. Lawmakers have at least a theoretical opportunity to change course and save our emergency-medical system—if enough voters make them pay attention.
South China Morning Post
03-07-2025
- General
- South China Morning Post
How are Chinese aircraft carriers pushing limits and testing boundaries in the Pacific?
New details emerging about a rare Chinese military drill involving two aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific last month reveal that the vessels are training with greater intensity and complexity, according to experts. One analyst said that by testing themselves against each, the Liaoning and Shandong carriers could gain a level of experience that even the United States military could not gain in battle because it was usually engaged with far less powerful rivals. Since Monday, state broadcaster CCTV has released several clips of drills focused on reconnaissance and early warning, defensive and counterstrike operations, anti-surface assaults, air defence and day-and-night tactical flights by carrier-based aircraft. 02:21 Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong arrives in Hong Kong for 5-day visit Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong arrives in Hong Kong for 5-day visit In the latest drills, in June, the two vessels operated beyond the second island chain in the Western Pacific together for the first time, reaching waters near Japan's easternmost islands and as far as 965km (600 miles) northeast of Guam , the US' westernmost territory. The drills were different in operations and strategic messaging from China's first dual carrier exercise conducted in October, which mainly took place in the South China Sea, with additional manoeuvres in the Yellow and East China seas. Timothy Heath, a senior international defence researcher at the US-based Rand Corporation, said the key difference was 'greater complexity and intensity'. 'By contrast, last year's exercise was essentially a trial run as it was the first time two carriers operated together. They did not travel as far or for as long a time, and the drills were simpler,' Heath said.
Al Arabiya
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
US military aircraft no longer visible at base in Qatar: Satellite images
Dozens of US military aircraft are no longer on the tarmac at a major US base in Qatar, satellite images show – a possible move to shield them from eventual Iranian air strikes, as Washington weighs whether to intervene in Tehran's conflict with Israel. Nearly 40 military aircraft – including transport planes like the Hercules C-130 and reconnaissance aircraft – were parked on the tarmac at the al-Udeid base on June 5, according to images published by Planet Labs PBC and analyzed by AFP. In an image taken on June 19, only three aircraft are visible. The US embassy in Qatar announced Thursday that access to the base would be limited 'out of an abundance of caution and in light of ongoing regional hostilities,' and urged personnel to 'exercise increased vigilance.' The White House says US President Donald Trump will decide sometime in the next two weeks whether to join ally Israel's strikes on Iran. Iran could then respond by striking US bases in the region. Mark Schwartz, a former lieutenant general in the US Army and a defense researcher at the Rand Corporation, said the personnel, aircraft and installations at al-Udeid would be 'extremely vulnerable' given its 'close proximity' to Iran. Schwartz, who served in the Middle East, told AFP that even shrapnel could render the aircraft 'non-mission capable.' 'You want to reduce risk to US forces, both personnel and equipment,' he said. The planes that have left the tarmac since early June could have been moved to hangars or to other bases in the region. A US defense official would not discuss the specific positioning of assets but told AFP: 'We remain committed to maintaining operational security while executing our mission with the highest level of readiness, lethality and professionalism.' US forces in the Middle East have been mobilized since Israel's first strikes on Iran nearly a week ago, with an additional aircraft carrier en route and significant aircraft movement. An AFP analysis of open source data tracking aircraft positioning showed that at least 27 military refueling planes – KC-46A Pegasus and KC-135 Stratotanker planes – traveled from the United States to Europe from June 15–18. Twenty-five of them were still in Europe as of late Wednesday, with only two returning to American soil, the data showed.
