Washington – In light of indicators of his decline in his popularity and the increasing criticism of his economic performance during the first 100 days of his second term, US President Donald Trump has returned to a file that touches the Americans’ daily suffering: the costs of medicines and health care.
Although the previous attempt during his first term was stumbled due to legal challenges and was subsequently canceled, Trump signed an executive on Monday to determine the prices of drugs in the United States based on their prices in other countries. “The Americans sometimes pay between 5 to 10 times what other countries pay for the same drugs, manufactured in the same factories,” he said at a news conference, pledging to correct this situation, which he described as “unacceptable.”
The reactions varied between those who welcomed this step, as a long -awaited response to reduce the “greed” of pharmaceutical companies, and those who saw an executive direction that lacks effective legal tools. Organizations and pharmaceutical companies have also expressed concern that these procedures will lead to market disturbance or negatively affect the area of research and innovation in the pharmaceutical industries.
Patient hopes
The Americans spend more annually on the prescribed medications than any other people in the world. The average per capita spending in the United States exceeds 1564 dollars annually, according to the data of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is the highest rate among all countries of the organization.
Laila, an American citizen with low incomes, hopes that the decision will actually be reflected on the drug bills of her family, especially as she depends on the government health “Medicid” coverage. “I hear about executive orders and electoral promises, but what occupies me is that I can spend any medicine for me or my son without thinking twice. I need to feel a change in the pharmacy, not on the news screen,” she told Al -Jazeera Net.
As for “Susan”, an American retired who lives on the outskirts of Washington, she sees that the decision “does not mean anything to her.” It has been taking an expensive drug for years, but it pays only $ 5 a month thanks to its health coverage. “I never trust Trump. He is not really concerned with health care, but rather tries to polish his image and earn voices as usual. Reform requires a fundamental change in the relationship of the state, Blopy of Medicines.”
Import policies
The new executive decision revives a previous attempt by the Trump era to implement the policy of the “most preferred country”, linking drug prices in the United States to the lowest prices adopted in developed countries. This policy was presented for the first time in 2020 as a regulatory base, but the federal courts were frozen at the end of that year for procedural reasons, before the Biden administration officially withdrawn it in 2021.
The Ministry of Health and Humanitarian Services expressed its support for price reduction efforts, noting that it will develop implementation mechanisms that include negotiations with companies and expanding direct distribution. The Food and Drug Administration has also announced its willingness to accelerate approvals on generic drugs.
The decision has alluded to the revival of the policies of importing medicines from abroad to provide cheaper alternatives to the American consumer. But experts believe that this mechanism may face organizational obstacles, especially as countries like Canada have previously expressed their refusal to be used as a head of the American market due to the limited internal supply. In the absence of clear agreements with the exporting states, the import option remains limited to the effect and may not be subject to wide implementation in the short term.
Implementation of implementation mechanisms
The “Patients for Medicines at reasonable prices”, a non -profit organization concerned with reducing prices, expressed its welcome to the decision as a recognition of the administration that the need to address the high prices that burdened the Americans. However, the organization, in a special correspondence for Al -Jazeera Net, expressed several reservations related to the difficulty of implementing the decision, the most prominent of which are:
- The absence of a clear definition of what is considered “strict measures” in the event that the pharmaceutical companies are not complied with.
- Implementation of actual implementation mechanisms by the Ministry of Health.
- Not to clarify how the direct distribution model with the current insurance systems.
- Possible obstacles in front of the import of medicines from abroad.
- The ambiguity of interference with the government “Medicir” program to negotiate prices.
- Weak resources of the Federal Trade Committee for effective control.
Legal gaps
In the first official reaction, the US Pharma Pharmaceutical Companies Association issued a statement describing the “most preferred price” policy as “a dangerous and irresponsible measure”, warning that “it imports foreign government pricing systems and exposes American patients at the risk of losing access to their medications.”
The statement added that this policy “will undermine medical innovation and discourage companies from investing in new research and treatments, without ensuring an actual price reduction.”
Health economists believe that this type of policy may impose additional burdens on federal insurance programs such as “Medicir” and “Medicid”, unless the supply chains structure is modified. They also indicate that the actual effect of the decision may remain limited unless a legal and legislative support network has been provided, including Congress intervention to give the Ministry of Health extensive powers or to amend some of the financing items.
Juliet Cobensky, Deputy Director of the Medicir Policy Program at the Kaiser Family Foundation, warns that the decision despite his popularity in public opinion raises legal questions that have not yet been answered, the most prominent of which is: with what authority can the administration impose these prices? What countries will be adopted? The pricing systems differ radically between countries such as Canada and Germany – where the state interferes directly – and the United States that depend on the free market and profit margins.
In a special analysis seen by “Al -Jazeera Net”, Copanski believes that some of the decision items may face a rejection within the Republican Party itself, which is traditionally reservations about any direct government interference in the pricing of medicines. She adds that linking prices to foreign markets may push companies to compensate for their losses by raising prices abroad, which may eventually lead to the absence of an actual impact on the American consumer.
Patent node
At the heart of the high price crisis, the problem of patents is highlighted, as pharmaceutical companies resort to what is known as “secondary improvements” to prolong the monopoly of the drug without providing actual innovation, which reflects negatively on the public health budget. Every year, a delay in the entry of generic drugs to the market may cost the government billions of dollars.
According to a study issued by the iCo, the global patent system reform, the United States is between 68 and 108 patents, with an actual monopoly rate of 19 years, including an additional 6 years thanks to “additional improvements”.
Despite the concentration of the presidential decision on lowering prices through international comparison, it does not address the reform of the structure of the patent system or reduce the “accumulation” of patents, which represents one of the most prominent high -price protection tools. Experts believe that the absence of this legislative dimension and the ambiguity of implementation mechanisms may allow companies to continue to add secondary patents that allow them to maintain their high prices, even if the government succeeds in imposing new new ceilings.
