Latest news with #drugcompanies
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Expensive Cancer Drugs Don't Always Work
Hi, its Bob in soggy New Jersey. I'm about to head to the big annual cancer conference in Chicago. How many of those new drugs save lives? More on that in a moment, but first ... I've been reporting on the FDA's expedited drug approval process for a couple of years now. Critics say it's helped drug companies make billions on drugs that turned out to be ineffective. And the cost of cancer drugs came up again and again.
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Health
- The Independent
A ‘groundbreaking' pandemic agreement for tackling disease outbreaks has been agreed. What does it mean?
An agreement on how to tackle future pandemics has been adopted by world leaders through the World Health Organisation (WHO), after years of painstaking negotiations. The WHO Pandemic Agreement was passed with applause by delegates at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva. The US will not be part of the agreement, having withdrawn from the WHO after Donald Trump took office – but the deal has been celebrated as a 'groundbreaking' treaty which for the first time sets out that medical developments funded by public money should be made equally available to everyone. Drug companies need information and samples of germs submitted by countries around the world in order to develop products to fight global outbreaks of disease. The treaty says that in future, if companies want to access this data during a health emergency, they will have to donate at least 10 per cent of the products they make back to the WHO to be shared out globally. The world's response to the Covid-19 pandemic was dogged by inequality between rich and poorer countries when it came to access to jabs, medicines and tests. For three years, government representatives have negotiated over the wording of a treaty aimed at avoiding a repeat of Covid, which saw three-quarters of people in the richest countries receiving a vaccine by the end 2021, compared with 8 per cent of people in the poorest countries. This cost lives, and may have helped prolonged the pandemic by allowing new and more infectious strains to mutate. Of the 135 countries that showed up, 124 voted for the resolution to pass while the rest abstained. The final negotiations concluded without the US present. Governments have agreed that if public money or resources is spent on developing, for example, a vaccine, there should be conditions attached to make sure that vaccine is fairly distributed around the world. One example of the injustices that played out during Covid was that people in developing countries, who took part in the clinical trials to help develop vaccines and medicines, then didn't get a fair shot at benefiting from them afterwards. In this pandemic agreement, there is a provision aimed at correcting this by, 'ensuring that clinical trial participants have access to the product after the trial finishes' said Rachael Crockett, a senior policy advocacy manager at the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi), 'which you would think should be obvious, but it doesn't happen'. There are two key principles in play: the first is that pandemics don't respect borders and the second is that tackling pandemics needs to be handled globally, and as fairly as possible to ensure they can be tackled. Therefore, you need all countries to have access to resources to prevent spread, regardless of whether they can afford them. In an attempt to address both of these, the pandemic agreement creates a mechanism called the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS). Countries are encouraged to share information about worrying viruses, bacteria or fungi they spot circulating in their populations, in exchange for being guaranteed products like vaccines and tests. The Third World Network (TWN) representing developing countries argues if you are compelling a nation to share data on, and samples of, potentially deadly bugs to protect other countries, it is also fair for them to receive benefits in return. Now, if pharmaceutical companies want to have access to this data, which is crucial to develop tests, drugs and vaccines, they will have to agree to donate a minimum of 10 per cent of the end product to the WHO to be shared with developing countries. Another 10 per cent will have to be 'reserved at affordable prices'. However, the exact details of this need to be agreed in a separate negotiation. The issue of donation and affordability proved a major sticking point as richer countries, especially those with bigger pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries – like Germany – pushed for any commitment to share vaccines and other medical products – as well as the know-how to produce them – to be voluntary. That one word – voluntary - nearly toppled the original negotiations, which concluded last month with a draft that excluded the contentious but crucial section on exactly how vaccines must be shared. This week it was presented at the World Health Assembly, the WHO's annual policy-setting meeting for formal adoption. The agreement also became the subject of conspiracy theories, with a 'torrent of fake news' that it would allow the WHO to impose global lockdowns or seize power from national governments – which according to the WHO put the negotiations, 'in danger of falling apart'. There are no such powers in the agreement. Countries have also agreed to take steps to share technology, so that manufacturers in other countries can make generic versions of drugs and vaccines developed to tackle health emergencies. But, 'the treaty does lack a firm commitment to transfer of technology, ' said Ellen 't Hoen, a lawyer and public health advocate. "That language is very weak and countries can get away with doing the absolute minimum or nothing at all'. The pandemic agreement is a major step forward, said Crockett, but added it was a 'massive product of compromise' 'I think a lot of this stuff has been watered down so the content is still there but it's not as strong an obligation,' she said, rather in many cases countries have agreed to work towards the goal of responding equitably to pandemics, but aren't bound to do it. There is work still to be done, with the details of that clause on sharing vaccines and other products needs to be negotiated. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), which represents the global pharmaceutical industry, has argued that steps have already been taken to make vaccines, treatments and tests, 'available and affordable' to 'priority populations in lower-income countries' and warned against placing a 'burden on [the] industry so high that it disincentivises future engagement'. The agreement also still needs to be approved and signed by the participating countries. It won't legally come into force until at least 60 countries have done so. 'We really do see um this is as a big opportunity,' Crockett said, 'but it's got to be implemented'. In a statement, the TWN said: "The adoption of the Pandemic Agreement is a milestone that follows three years of intense negotiations, deep divides, and difficult compromises,' adding that this should be viewed as an 'initial' effort to address inequities and prepare for future pandemics. "The real test lies ahead,' it said, in the next phase of negotiations which will put detail on exactly how developing countries can access resources. 'If these next steps fail, the world may once again face a pandemic armed only with a little more than empty promises, risking a repeat of the devastating failures seen during Covid-19 '.
Irish Times
15-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the March export surge: scrambling to beat the tariffs
The extraordinary €20 billion monthly surge in Irish pharmaceutical exports to the US in March is a direct result of companies with Irish bases trying to get product across the Atlantic before tariffs are imposed. The figures, contained in the latest trade figures from the Central Statistics Office, again underline how central Irish operations are to the production of drugs and key ingredients for the US market. And in turn this leaves Ireland exposed to the policies of US president Donald Trump. The export surge in the early months of this year followed threats by Trump to impose special tariffs on pharmaceutical imports to the US in a bid to force companies to relocate production. This was never going to be a quick process. Also, a few days ago Trump upped the ante further by signalling that he was going to use the purchasing muscle of the US government to demand lower prices from the drug companies. This may ultimately end up in some kind of negotiation in Washington. But it is another threat to Ireland as it is likely to reduce profits from selling into the US market. Under the current tax avoidance structures used by the companies, much of this profit is recorded in Ireland and tax on it is paid here. READ MORE As with so much of Trump's policies, it is unclear how this will play out. So far pharma exports – though not those of medical products – have escaped any tariffs. Also, there is no indication of a change in the US tax rules which could influence investment decisions. But the determination of the US president to relocate manufacturing and drive down prices does threaten the level of production conducted in Ireland and could see it reduce over time, costing jobs and tax revenues. There is a business logic to companies producing here for European markets and this will remain. The case for doing so could, in fact, even increase if tariff barriers are erected for pharma products crossing the Atlantic. But producing in Ireland for the US market is driven in large part by tax considerations. And this is the part of the business more likely to come under threat. There are short-term tactical considerations here for the Government in terms of its attempts to influence and feed into the negotiations between Brussels and Washington. But it can only do so much – and the likelihood is that at least some of the key negotiations will take place in Washington between the pharma companies and the administration. However, the Government will also realise that even before all this happened the shortcomings in housing and infrastructure here were already causing angst to major investors. This is the area under Irish control where an ability to actually make progress needs to be demonstrated to underpin future investment both from international and domestic companies.
ABC News
13-05-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Trump wants lower drug prices and pharmaceutical tariffs — what does that mean for Australia?
Pharmaceutical companies around the world are steeling themselves for another major tariff announcement from the Trump administration that could make exporting medicine into the US more expensive. Australia exports about $US1.6 billion ($2.5 billion) worth of medicines and healthcare products to the US each year, which makes up around 40 per cent of our total pharmaceutical exports across the globe. But local manufacturers say they are only expecting to feel a moderate ripple from any fresh US trade restrictions. Mr Trump's "Liberation Day" announcement last month slapped a 10 per cent baseline tariff on exports from many countries, including Australia, and while medical devices were included, pharmaceuticals were spared. But last week the US president warned specific pharmaceutical tariffs were coming "over the next two weeks" and would force manufacturers to "leave China" and start making more products in the US. "… [There's] going to be a tariff wall put up, and they won't be happy about it," he said. While the world awaits that wall, Mr Trump has signed executive orders aimed at speeding up drug approvals and another that promises to bring down the cost of medicines. US drug companies were told to voluntarily lower their prices in the next 30 days to match prices in comparable countries, otherwise, the government may step in and impose the price. It is a policy called the "most favoured nation" and some experts say it would push prices up in other countries as drug companies try to recoup lost profits in the US. Jared Mondschein, director of research at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, predicted countries like Australia would have to pay more or lose access to some new, innovative products. But Matt Grudnoff, senior economist at the Australia Institute, said Australian consumers shouldn't panic. "Our government has enormous bargaining power when it comes to setting the price of drugs here and just because [companies are] no longer able to earn super profits in the US, that doesn't take away from the market tussle here," he said. "If the US pharmaceutical companies could get a better price out of Australia, they would do it regardless of how much they're gouging the US." It is really US consumers who will feel the pain of any tariffs in this space. Analysts are expecting big price hikes in the US for generic drugs, which make up a big portion of prescriptions and operate on small margins. Australian manufacturers who can not shift their operations to America may see demand drop if they have to compete with US-made medicines. But if there is no alternative drug in the US market — for example, Australian-patented drugs — American consumers will be forced to pay the higher cost. However, do not expect prices to change here in Australia. "I don't think it will have a huge effect on us," said Professor Anthony Scott from Monash's Centre for Health Economics. Pharmaceutical imports into Australia exceed what we send to the US by around $US1 billion ($1.6 billion) so if we were to go down the path of reciprocal tariffs — where we put a tariff on US pharmaceuticals coming in — there would be major repercussions. "If we retaliated, that would mean the US products that come here would go up in price," Director of Health at the Grattan Institute, Peter Breadon, said. That would be dangerous because Australia imports around 21 per cent of total pharmaceuticals from the US, making it the largest single supplier. With that in mind, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already ruled out any retaliatory action. "We will not join a race to the bottom that leads to higher prices and slower growth," he said in April. Entangled in this whole tariff business is the fact US drug companies have never been fans of Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) That is because the PBS is about keeping prices down for Australians. Instead of some medicines costing thousands of dollars per script, we only have to fork out a $31.60 co-payment if a medicine is listed on the PBS. The government picks up the rest of the cost. The scheme forces drug companies into tough negotiations with the federal government on price so the company does not just dictate what the medicine is worth. The powerful pharma lobby in the US (PhRMA) said this was unfair and undervalued American innovations, so has long pushed the US government to take action against Australia. But there is almost no chance the PhRMA could influence Australia to change the PBS — it has been described by political leaders as "sacrosanct" and Labor even went to the election with a promise to reduce the co-payment to $25 by next year. "The PBS is an Australian institution … it will never be up for negotiation," Mr Albanese said last month. We do not know when the pharmaceutical-specific tariffs will be announced, but medical devices imported to the US have been subjected to tariffs for the last month and American hospitals have been bracing for increased costs and disrupted patient care. It is expected there will be shortages there of essential supplies such as syringes, surgical gloves, anaesthesia instruments and pulse oximeters because a lot of these come into the US from China. China was hit by a sky-high 145 per cent tariff by Mr Trump but that was just dropped to 30 per cent for 90 days while trade negotiations resumed. However, two of Australia's biggest exporters of medical devices to the US have found a way to avoid these tariffs. Cochlear is a manufacturer of cochlear implants and ResMed is a sleep technology giant. Both companies have manufacturing facilities in Sydney. They found an exemption to the tariffs, relying on a US law that provides for duty-free importation of products for people with disabilities. Mr Trump signalled they could be in the "neighbourhood" of 25 per cent and reporting suggested that could increase the cost of drugs in the US by around $US51 billion annually. The US relies a lot on China, Europe and India for pharmaceuticals but Australia is a much smaller contributor, mostly exporting blood products and vaccines made by CSL. CSL is one of Australia's biggest companies and has two manufacturing facilities in Melbourne that make influenza vaccines, antivenoms and biotherapies to treat autoimmune disorders. But CSL also has a massive presence in the US, where it employs more than 19,000 people across 44 states, which is about 60 per cent of its global workforce. This significant US footprint puts CSL in a good position to respond to any forthcoming pharmaceutical tariffs as they can ramp up US production. Their US plasma products will still have to undergo some processing in Australia, but CSL is banking on Mr Trump carving out an exemption to safeguard supplies of this critical product. Telix Pharmaceuticals is another Australian company in a similar boat. It makes targeted radiation therapies for cancers and has facilities in Melbourne but also has manufacturing and distribution infrastructure in the US. "Telix Pharmaceuticals does not expect any material impact on its business or supply chain as the result of the international trade tariffs levied by the US government … the majority of Telix's workforce is based in the US," a spokesperson said. The ABC reached out to seven other pharmaceutical manufacturers in Australia but many did not wish to comment given economic sensitivities.
CNET
12-05-2025
- Business
- CNET
Trump Asks Drugmakers to Voluntarily Lower US Prices, but Will They Comply?
Drug companies were nervously awaiting President Trump's announcement on pharmaceutical tariffs, but instead, he signed a "better than feared" executive order on Monday. According to the New York Times, Trump wants US drug companies to voluntarily reduce US prices. Despite having no real legal authority to enact this, the executive order did say that if drugmakers do not lower US prices, the Trump administration would consider imposing regulations or importing drugs from other countries. On Sunday, Trump stated in a Truth Social post that he would employ a "most favored nation's policy," in which the US will pay the same price as the nation that pays the lowest price. This caused pharmaceutical stocks to go up on Monday morning. "I'm not knocking the drug companies," Trump said, per the NYT. "I'm really more knocking the countries than the drug companies." With this in mind, the executive order also asks federal agencies to look into why European countries have lower prices. Trump said he would use trade policy to get these countries to pay more. However, since drugmakers already have contracts with these governments, it's not clear how this would be enforced. According to pharmaceutical companies, higher drug prices in the US allow people to get their prescriptions faster and with fewer insurance restrictions. "Most favored nation is a deeply flawed proposal that would devastate our nation's small- and mid-size biotech companies, the very companies that are the leading drivers of medical innovation in the United States and the cornerstone of America's biotechnology leadership," said John F. Crowley, president and CEO of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, in a statement. On the other hand, the NYT reports that Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of PhRMA, a US trade group representing pharmaceutical companies, stated, "US patients should not foot the bill for global innovation," and that foreign governments should have "to pay their fair share for medicines." Only time will tell how and if this executive order will be enacted and whether US drug companies will voluntarily lower their prices for American patients. In the meantime, we will be waiting for Trump's pharmaceutical tariff announcement.
