The U.S. market's high prices create the large profit pool necessary to fund risky drug development. If the U.S. adopted price negotiation like other countries, the global incentive for pharmaceutical innovation would shrink, resulting in fewer new drugs being developed worldwide.
Related Insights
The US innovation ecosystem is fueled by a culture of risk-taking, which is incentivized by a regressive tax system at the highest levels. The tax rate plummets for the wealthiest 1%, creating an enormous potential upside that encourages venture creation, despite the lack of a social safety net.
By negotiating prices down from over $1,000 to as low as $150 per month, the government deal fundamentally shifts Ozempic's market position. It is no longer a high-end luxury akin to plastic surgery but an accessible wellness product comparable to a fancy gym membership, dramatically expanding its addressable market.
While patents are important, a pharmaceutical giant's most durable competitive advantage is its ability to navigate complex global regulatory systems. This 'regulatory know-how' is a massive barrier to entry that startups cannot easily replicate, forcing them into acquisition by incumbents.
China is no longer just a low-cost manufacturing hub for biotech. It has become an innovation leader, leveraging regulatory advantages like investigator-initiated trials to gain a significant speed advantage in cutting-edge areas like cell and gene therapy. This shifts the competitive landscape from cost to a race for speed and novel science.
The Orphan Drug Act successfully incentivized R&D for rare diseases. A similar policy framework is needed for common, age-related diseases. Despite their massive potential markets, these indications suffer from extremely high failure rates and costs. A new incentive structure could de-risk development and align commercial goals with the enormous societal need for longevity.
Historically a Democratic focus, drug pricing policy has been co-opted by Republicans, making it a bipartisan political issue. This alignment creates a stable policy overhang and sustained uncertainty around pricing and innovation, deterring generalist investors regardless of which party is in power.
A centrist solution to high drug prices involves combining ideas from both political aisles. Oliver Libby suggests allowing Medicare to negotiate prices (a left-leaning idea) while also extending patent life for drug companies (a right-leaning idea), thus lowering costs without killing the incentive for innovation.
Selling low-cost vaccines to organizations like Gavi isn't just charity for pharmaceutical companies. It creates massive economies of scale, lowering the cost of goods for their high-margin primary markets and increasing overall net profit, creating a powerful win-win incentive structure.
Unlike labor-dependent services that get more expensive, prescription drugs offer a unique societal ROI because they eventually go generic and become cheaper. This deflationary aspect is a powerful, underappreciated argument for investing in drug development, as successful medicines provide compounding value to society over time.
The next decade in biotech will prioritize speed and cost, areas where Chinese companies excel. They rapidly and cheaply advance molecules to early clinical trials, attracting major pharma companies to acquire assets that they historically would have sourced from US biotechs. This is reshaping the global competitive landscape.