Invoices
Two months ago, the Department of Commerce has begun research on whether pharmaceutical imports are a threat to national security (ie, research under Article 232). It is not only the categories of research, the implementation of the proposed rehabilitation – more invoices – will create the very problems that research hopes to avoid.
It is assumed that pharmaceutical imports are annoying because they create vulnerabilities. The introduction of drugs and pharmaceuticals is supposed to allow opponents to disrupt our access to the necessary medicines. This vulnerability exposes the US to possible geopolitical blackmail and creates an unacceptable threat of national security.
Even if this category was worth – it does not – the proposed treatment makes no sense. If the survey of Article 232 concludes that there are national security vulnerabilities, then the government will impose tariffs on drugs and active pharmaceuticals. THE Trump administration has dropped around the tariffs 25% or higher as a suitable contribution.
Invoices are, of course, just taxes. In the case of medicinal products, patients will carry the main weight of these taxes both directly and indirectly. Part of the invoices will be transferred to patients, which directly increases the cost of drugs – general and brand name. The highest costs for medicines will aggravate drug accessibility and create potential access problems for some patients.
Indirectly, part of the invoices will be borne by drug manufacturers. However, here too, these expenses will eventually hurt patients. The exact impact will depend on whether this drug is a general or branded drug.
General manufacturers, who account for 90% of all drugs forecast in the US, are currently operating in minutes. The overwhelming majority of generic drugs in the US costs $ 20 or less with average Copays patient from just over $ 6.00. The invoice section for imported generic medicines that cannot be transferred to consumers will increase the cost of producing generic drugs.
These higher expenses will undermine the financial viability of general manufacturers. With a weaker general base production, patients will lose access to some of the most affordable medicines available today.
It is important that invoices will also be imposed on imported pharmaceutical ingredients. Increasing the cost of components based on many home general manufacturers will further increase costs and reduce the availability of low -cost general drugs.
Overall, duties policy makes the production of general drugs in the domestic market less profitable. The real impact on duty policy is counterproductive as a result – reduces the incentive to increase domestic drug production.
The impact on branded drug manufacturers is equally alarming. The US is the world leader in the bioformal industry. The industry lined $ 141 billion for research and development in 2022 and contributes significantly to the US economy.
In addition to financial contributions, innovative drugs have significantly improved health effects for patients, such as those living with cancer and autoimmune diseases. Continuing innovation provides hope for patients living with diseases who have not been treated, such as patients with Alzheimer’s disease.
The section of invoices charged by branded manufacturers increases their costs, making it less likely to cover the cost of their capital for the development of innovative drugs – estimated to be $ 2.9 billion including R&D costs after approval. Due to these higher expenditure, the incentive to invest in the next generation of drugs is reduced, reducing the chances that effective drugs will develop effectively for untreated conditions.
Regarding the survey of Article 232, the claim that there are possible consequences of national security is based on significant misunderstandings of the events. For example, the majority of innovative drugs consumed in the US is already ”produced in the United States. “In addition, for the medicines and pharmaceutical ingredients imported, they are mainly imported by US allies, such as Europe, not by potential opponents.
There are also healthy reasons for manufacturers to exploit the global supply chain when manufacturing medicines-allows the biopharmaceutical industry to produce high quality, safe medicines in a costly efficient manner. Because the current structure is costly efficient, even if invoices encouraged all production in the US, patients will see the cost of their medicines to increase. The result would be a less effective, more expensive biopharmaceutical industry.
While national security arguments are of no value, there are still actions that the administration could take to encourage the largest domestic construction. For example, a decrease in current regulatory burdens that inflate the cost of making drugs in the US will reduce costs and encourage greater domestic production without suffering from all tariff losses.
A 25% invoice to imported medicines will significantly increase the cost of drugs in the US and create new access issues for patients – especially for poorly insured families of lower income. In other words, if the research under Article 232 concludes that the global supply chain is a threat to patients’ access to medicines, the administration’s response will create the costs and access issues that concern them. Such actions simply do not make sense.
