ReviewHealth policy OPEN2026
The impact of the United States most favored nation policies on prices of branded medicines and research and development.
Review in Health policy OPEN, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Executive Order (EO) reintroducing the Most Favored Nation (MFN) policy sets out measures to lower prices of branded medicines in the United States (US) and increase them elsewhere. Methods: To understand the impact of the policy on prices and on pharmaceutical innovation, this paper reviews empirical literature on historic price trends in the US and other high-income countries, the impact of international reference pricing (IRP), and the impact of regulation and market conditions on Research and Development (R&D). Results: 49 studies were included. List prices are greater in the US than other high-income countries, and the difference in net prices has widened in the last two decades. The IRP literature indicates that for some drugs, MFN might be able to reduce prices in the US and increase them in reference countries, particularly for drugs where Medicare and Medicaid have a high global market share. In other cases, firms may strategically delay or cancel launch in other countries to avoid price comparisons. It is likely that MFN will provoke a reduction in global pharma revenues and aggregate investment in R&D. Conclusion: A few countries are increasing prices as part of trade deals with the US. If countries do not wish to increase prices, then they should expect, and prepare for, slower pharma innovation. From a public health perspective, it is not just aggregate R&D that matters, but whether R&D investment is directed to projects which are likely to promote the greatest health gain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.