Despite viewing the IRA's shorter negotiation window for pills versus biologics as "terrible policy," the biotech industry is not making its repeal a top legislative priority. Bigger fights like MFN and tariffs are consuming advocacy resources, forcing a strategic deprioritization.

Related Insights

While large pharmaceutical companies spend record amounts lobbying against drug pricing policies, the trade group for smaller biotechs has cut its spending to a 20-year low. This divergence highlights how immediate commercial threats, rather than broader FDA policy changes, are currently driving lobbying priorities for different segments of the industry.

The White House is proposing to make Most Favored Nation (MFN) drug pricing permanent law, a move the industry calls "terrible and unmanageable." The industry's strategy relies on key Congressional committees to block the legislation, viewing them as a firewall against the administration's policy.

Early-year fears of existential threats from policies like Most Favored Nation (MFN) drug pricing have faded. V.C. Bruce Booth notes investors now see these as political wins for the administration that don't fundamentally alter revenue forecasts, reflecting a desensitization to political risk.

While MFN pricing is seen as a major threat, it could have an unexpected positive effect. It would force companies launching new drugs to establish a GDP-adjusted global price from the start, ending the current system where the U.S. effectively subsidizes lower prices elsewhere.

Major pharmaceutical companies are now willing to deploy the "nuclear option" of pulling planned R&D investments to express displeasure with national drug pricing policies. This tactic, seen in the UK, represents a direct and aggressive strategy to pressure governments into accepting higher prices for innovative medicines.

The Most Favored Nation (MFN) policy forces a difficult choice: launch early in Europe and risk a lower US reference price, or delay the European launch to protect US revenue, slowing patient access. This dilemma upends traditional global launch strategies, creating commercial, ethical, and operational problems for pharma companies.

After years of policy debates, biotech investors have become desensitized to drug pricing headlines. While this supports current market resilience, it creates a potential blind spot, as a truly significant policy change could catch the market off-guard and cause a sharp correction.

CEOs are in an awkward position, supporting the administration in public but asking Congress not to codify the Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy. They fear legislation would create a permanent, stricter, and more broadly applied version than their private deals with the White House.

The Most Favored Nation (MFN) policy was strategically designed to be disruptive. The aim was less about implementing a specific pricing framework and more about forcing the pharmaceutical industry to change its behavior, re-evaluate global strategies, and engage in new types of negotiations, which has already proven effective.

MFN's pressure on global pricing will change how innovation is valued. Truly disruptive drugs may command higher prices ex-US, while incremental "me-too" drugs in crowded classes will not. This will force pharma companies to shift R&D investment away from iterative improvements and toward therapies with radical treatment-disrupting potential.