2025年9月30日，辉瑞公司与美国政府达成"最惠国价格"（Most-Favored-Nation Price）协议，计划参与 即将上线的TrumpRx平台，辉瑞宣称将为美国患者提供最高可达85%、平均约50%的药品折扣，并承诺 向各州医疗补助计划（Medicaid）提供"最惠国价格"。作为回报，公司将在三年内获得关税豁免和相关 政策便利。表面上看，这是一场政府与制药企业之间的价格谈判，但从更广的制度视角观察，这一举措 反映出美国药品定价体系在经历长期市场化运行后，正试图向政府更多直接参与的模式转变。 长期以来，美国药品定价机制以自由定价和市场调节为主。2003年《医疗保险现代化法案》（Medicare Modernization Act）中的"不干预条款"，禁止联邦政府直接与制药企业谈判药价，导致政府对药价仅有 零星直接干预。叠加药品福利管理机构（Pharmacy Benefit Managers，PBMs）的多层分销结构和复杂回 扣制度，美国药品价格高企，定价体系复杂。根据兰德（RAND）2024年的报告显示，2022年美国药品 的平均价格是其他33个经合组织国家的2.78倍，美国品牌原研药的价格更是平均 ...

Core Viewpoint - The White House's actions to lower domestic drug prices are leading to increased drug prices in Europe, as exemplified by Eli Lilly's decision to raise its official drug prices in overseas markets [1][2]. Group 1: Company Actions - Eli Lilly announced an increase in its drug prices in overseas markets, stating that to lower U.S. drug prices, prices in other developed markets like Europe need to rise [1]. - The company raised the official price of its diabetes and obesity drug Mounjaro in the UK by 170% for the largest tablet specification, with lower doses seeing increases of 45% to 138% [2]. Group 2: Market Impact - Eli Lilly's price hikes in Europe may help offset potential profit losses from lowering prices in the U.S. and could also elevate the baseline for the proposed "most favored nation" pricing policy by the White House [2]. - Following the announcement, Eli Lilly's stock price rose by 3.62% [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant price disparity of prescription drugs in the U.S. compared to other developed countries, leading to new policies aimed at price control and the potential impact on multinational pharmaceutical companies and emerging markets [1][2]. Group 1: U.S. Drug Pricing Policies - U.S. prescription drug prices are 2-3 times higher than those in other developed countries, with some innovative drugs priced at 10 times higher than in China [1] - New policies require pharmaceutical companies to provide "most favored nation pricing" to U.S. Medicare, sign contracts for price locking, renegotiate overseas prices to "repatriate profits," and promote direct sales for price transparency [1][2] - The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) criticized these policies, claiming they would undermine U.S. innovation [1][2] Group 2: Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies' Strategies - Companies like Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Merck are adopting multi-faceted strategies to balance profits and compliance, including adjusting global pricing strategies [3] - Some companies are lowering prices in the U.S. while increasing prices in other markets to maintain profit margins, with AstraZeneca already announcing price reductions for certain drugs in the U.S. [3][4] - To offset profit losses, companies may raise prices in emerging markets like China, where the annual treatment cost for PD-1 drugs is approximately 1.16 million yuan, ten times higher than in China [4] Group 3: Cost Optimization Strategies - Cost reduction is a core objective, leveraging China's low-cost advantages, where biopharmaceutical R&D costs are 1/5 to 1/10 of those in the U.S. [5] - Pfizer has signed over $1 billion in CDMO orders with Chinese companies to transfer some biopharmaceutical production to China, reducing production costs by 30% [5][6] - Companies are also transferring non-core technologies to China to avoid tariffs and lower costs, such as Pfizer's collaboration with Chinese firms to establish PD-1 production bases [6][7] Group 4: Legal and Policy Maneuvering - Industry associations and pharmaceutical companies are using legal and political avenues to resist new policies, with PhRMA planning to appeal to the WTO regarding the "most favored nation pricing" requirement [10] - They are lobbying Congress, arguing that foreign price controls could reduce U.S. R&D investment by $10 billion annually [10] Group 5: Opportunities and Challenges for Chinese Companies - Chinese companies are positioned to benefit from accelerated domestic substitution, with local biosimilars gaining price advantages [11] - CDMO businesses are expanding, with WuXi Biologics reporting a 144% year-on-year increase in CDMO revenue in the first half of 2025 [12] - Chinese pharmaceutical companies are also achieving breakthroughs in international markets through licensing agreements, with total upfront payments reaching $2.329 billion in the first half of 2025 [13] Group 6: Beneficiary Companies - Companies in the biosimilar sector, such as Innovent Biologics and Antengene, are expected to gain market share as multinational firms raise prices in China [16] - WuXi Biologics is recognized as a leading global CDMO, while other companies like Eastone and Hengrui are also expanding their CDMO projects [17] - Chinese firms that have established production facilities in India and Southeast Asia, like Huahai Pharmaceutical, are likely to benefit from reduced reliance on the U.S. market [19]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses President Trump's recent demands for major pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices in the U.S. within 60 days, threatening to use all means necessary if they refuse [2][3]. Group 1: Trump's Demands - Trump has requested that major pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Merck, take measures to reduce drug prices by September 29 [3]. - He emphasized that the collaboration to lower drug prices would be the most effective approach for businesses, government, and patients [5]. - The specific measures requested include implementing "most favored nation" pricing, locking in new drug prices, pressuring foreign markets, and bypassing intermediaries to sell directly to consumers [6][7]. Group 2: Impact on Pharmaceutical Stocks - Following the announcement, pharmaceutical stocks experienced significant declines, with Sanofi dropping over 7% and Novo Nordisk nearly 6% [2][8]. - The pharmaceutical industry has historically opposed the idea of linking drug prices globally, arguing it threatens U.S. leadership in biomedical research and innovation [8]. - Some companies have shown willingness to cooperate with the government, while the industry's largest trade organization remains resistant to proposed reforms [8][9]. Group 3: Industry Response - AstraZeneca's CEO acknowledged the unsustainable nature of the current situation, breaking from industry consensus [9]. - Pfizer and Merck expressed their commitment to working with the government to improve patient access to medications [9].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of President Trump's executive order aimed at reducing prescription drug prices in the U.S., which could lead to significant price reductions of 30% to 80% for American patients, while raising concerns for Chinese pharmaceutical companies operating in the U.S. market [1][2][6]. Summary by Sections Executive Order Details - On May 12, Trump signed an executive order requiring U.S. patients to have access to "Most-Favored-Nation Price" (MFN), limiting U.S. drug prices to the lowest levels among OECD countries [2][4]. - The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is tasked with implementing this policy, which includes establishing direct sales channels for drug companies and considering importing drugs from countries with lower prices [2][4]. Market Reactions - Following the announcement, large multinational pharmaceutical companies saw their stock prices rebound, with companies like Merck, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer experiencing gains of 5.87%, 2.86%, and 3.64% respectively [4]. - In contrast, Chinese innovative drug companies like BeiGene and Hutchison China MediTech faced stock declines prior to the announcement, reflecting market concerns about their profitability in the U.S. [2][4]. Long-term Implications - Analysts suggest that the executive order may face significant implementation challenges, and the long-term trend of reducing drug prices in the U.S. is unlikely to change [4][6]. - A study indicated that the price of brand-name drugs in the U.S. was 4.22 times higher than in other OECD countries, with these drugs accounting for 87% of U.S. prescription drug spending [6]. - The pricing disparity poses risks for Chinese companies like BeiGene, whose flagship product is priced significantly higher in the U.S. compared to China, potentially impacting their revenue if U.S. prices are forced down [6][7]. Risks for Chinese Pharmaceutical Companies - Chinese pharmaceutical firms that rely on overseas partnerships may face increased policy risks, as seen with Junshi Biosciences and its PD-1 product entering the U.S. market [7]. - The potential for reduced drug prices in the U.S. could lead to lower profit margins for these companies, affecting their valuation and revenue streams from international markets [7].

Group 1 - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has set a target for the most favored nation pricing for healthcare services [1]

Core Viewpoint - The executive order signed by Trump aims to lower prescription drug prices in the U.S. by implementing a "most-favored-nation" pricing policy, requiring pharmaceutical companies to align U.S. drug prices with the lowest prices in comparable developed countries [2][4]. Group 1: Executive Order Details - The executive order titled "Most-Favored-Nation Pricing for Prescription Drugs" was signed on May 12, 2025, to address the long-standing issue of high drug prices in the U.S. [2][4]. - The order proposes that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) establish a system allowing patients to purchase drugs directly from manufacturers at the most-favored-nation price, bypassing middlemen [2][3]. - If the most-favored-nation pricing is not implemented within 30 days, HHS will consider mandatory policies, including importing lower-priced drugs from other developed countries [2][3]. Group 2: Challenges and Industry Impact - The implementation of the executive order is expected to face significant challenges, as there is a large buffer between the net and list prices of drugs in the U.S. [4]. - In 2023, U.S. drug spending reached $910 billion based on Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC), but the net spending was around $650 billion, indicating a substantial gap [4]. - The executive order lacks specific execution details, making its implementation difficult [4]. - A similar executive order issued by Trump in September 2020 was suspended due to strong opposition from the industry, and subsequently revoked by the Biden administration [4]. Group 3: Market Outlook - The overall impact of the executive order on the pharmaceutical industry is expected to be limited in the short term due to the aforementioned challenges [4][6]. - The company maintains a "stronger than market" rating for the innovative drug sector despite the potential changes in pricing policies [6].

Core Viewpoint - The executive order signed by Trump aims to lower prescription drug prices in the U.S. by requiring pharmaceutical companies to match the lowest prices in comparable developed countries, but the short-term impact on the industry is expected to be limited [1] Group 1: Executive Order Details - The executive order titled "Most Favored Nation Pricing for Prescription Drugs" was signed on May 12, 2025 [1] - It mandates that drug prices in the U.S. should align with the lowest prices in comparable developed nations [1] - The order also proposes to increase price transparency in the U.S. drug market and reduce the profit margins of middlemen, such as Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) [1] Group 2: Industry Impact - The implementation of the executive order is anticipated to face significant challenges, leading to a limited short-term impact on the pharmaceutical industry [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government aims to significantly reduce prescription drug costs and ensure fairness for American citizens by eliminating intermediaries and promoting direct sales at the lowest prices available [1] Group 1 - The initiative will lead to a decrease in drug prices for American citizens [1] - The strategy involves removing middlemen in the pharmaceutical supply chain [1] - The government plans to implement a system that allows drugs to be sold at the most favored nation prices directly to consumers [1]