Addressing MFN Innovation Concerns

Former U.S. Representative Joe Cunningham (D-SC) and spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance, dismisses the pharmaceutical industry's argument that MFN pricing would harm innovation by tying U.S. prices to international benchmarks, calling it a common scapegoat that collapses under the facts.

He points out that the top 10 drugmakers spend over 80 cents of every revenue dollar on things other than research such as, stock buybacks, shareholder dividends, and heavy advertising and marketing, a practice he notes is largely unique to the U.S. For Cunningham, this spending pattern shows the money isn't primarily funding R&D, and even if it were, that still wouldn't justify American consumers effectively subsidizing lower drug prices enjoyed in other developed nations.

That same skepticism toward industry-backed fixes carries into his assessment of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient reserve included in the new MFN deals: he questions how it would put any money back in consumers' pockets, since prices at checkout wouldn't change because of it. Codifying Most-Favored-Nation pricing, in his view, remains the most direct path to lowering drug costs, and he pairs that with a second concrete lever, shortening U.S. patent protections so generic drugs can reach the market sooner, a move he says 85% of Americans support specifically because it would lower prices.