Agreements often labeled "MFN deals" are more accurately tariff-avoidance arrangements. In these deals, pharmaceutical companies commit to significant investment in US manufacturing in exchange for price parity, suggesting a broader policy goal beyond just drug price reduction and focused on boosting the domestic economy.
Related Insights
Initial panic over the MFN drug pricing scheme was based on pegging U.S. prices to the lowest in the industrialized world. The actual proposal is far less drastic, targeting the second-lowest price among a small cohort of high-income nations (G7 plus Denmark and Switzerland), a significantly less onerous benchmark.
The administration is leveraging the U.S.'s market power to demand "most favored nation" pricing from pharmaceutical companies. This forces them to offer drugs at the lowest price available in any other developed nation, slashing costs for American consumers.
The biopharma outsourcing sector has proven surprisingly resilient to international tariffs. Instead of absorbing costs, well-funded European companies are bypassing tariffs altogether by investing in and building new production facilities directly on U.S. soil, effectively onshoring their manufacturing.
By voluntarily agreeing to a watered-down version of a 'most favored nation' pricing system, pharmaceutical companies have inadvertently set a precedent. This makes it harder for them to argue against more stringent, codified pricing regulations from future administrations, as they can no longer claim it's a 'red line' they cannot cross.
To achieve Most Favored Nation (MFN) drug pricing, the administration paired HHS negotiators with the Commerce Secretary. While one team negotiated terms, the Commerce Secretary acted as the "hammer," holding a credible threat of crippling tariffs over pharmaceutical companies that primarily manufacture overseas. This forced compliance.
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.
A new US-UK agreement exempts UK pharmaceuticals from tariffs in exchange for the UK's National Health Service (NHS) paying 25% more for new drugs. This deal effectively uses the UK's drug-costing watchdog, NICE, as a bargaining chip, undermining its authority to secure a trade concession from the US.
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.
New "voluntary" CMS programs, like BALANCE for obesity drugs, are creating a framework for Most Favored Nation (MFN) style pricing in the US. They allow manufacturers to trade lower, internationally-referenced prices for higher volumes, fundamentally altering the US pricing landscape from the inside out.
