Op-Ed | Government price setting is a prescription for reduced access and fewer cures for patients

When government officials propose policies that set prices for life-saving medicines, the idea can sound simple: make prescription drugs more affordable and easier to access. But history, economics, and global experience tell a much different story. Government price controls, including importing other countries’ price caps through “most favored nation” policies, may be well-intentioned, but they consistently lead to fewer treatment options, slower innovation, and worse outcomes for patients.

Price-setting policies aren’t new. But a quick trip through the history of where they’ve been tried reveals a disturbing pattern of shortages, long waits for treatment, limited access to therapies, and reduced medical innovation.

Around the world, when governments set prices, access to new medicines is drastically delayed — leaving patients waiting years, sometimes a decade or more, for treatments Americans can access almost immediately. China’s healthcare system is a stark example: despite major investments in research, centralized price-setting and procurement have created long delays in availability of new therapies, persistent shortages and wide disparities in patients’ access to care. Closer to home, Cuba’s decades-long reliance on government-controlled pricing has produced even more severe gaps in access to health care, with chronic shortages of the most basic medical supplies, let alone advanced treatments.

Even Europe stands as a cautionary example. Decades of government rationing and price caps forced patients to wait years for access to new medicines and suppressed research investment. In 1990, European companies contributed nearly 50% of global pharmaceutical research and development investment, but that has fallen to 29% today.

These systems that some policymakers propose to import to the U.S. may look efficient on paper, but in practice they create a world where innovation stalls and patients wait.

America’s leadership in biopharmaceutical innovation didn’t happen by chance — it grew from a system that rewards scientific risk-taking and supports a vibrant innovation ecosystem of universities, biotech startups, scientific researchers, patient advocacy organizations, and research-based biopharmaceutical companies.

Government price-setting would disrupt that foundation, not by stopping innovation outright, but by shifting it to countries eager to become the next global hub for biotech investment. At a time when the U.S. must strengthen its preparedness for future health threats and secure its medical supply chain, policies that weaken our research environment put patients and our competitiveness at risk. The question isn’t whether innovation will continue — it is whether it will continue here in the U.S.

America’s strength lies in its ability to foster competition and reward discovery, making the U.S. a global leader in medical innovation. We should not jeopardize that leadership with policies that undermine the very engine of progress. That is why principled leadership from our elected officials is so important.

Republican U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis has consistently raised concerns about the dangers of onerous federal regulations that stifle innovation and economic growth. As debates continue over proposals to import failed foreign price control schemes, the case for her leadership is clear. History shows that centralized price-setting and heavy-handed mandates undermine medical innovation, restrict patient choice, and reduce access to care. By standing firmly against these approaches,

Malliotakis can reinforce her commitment to fiscal responsibility, free-market solutions, and ensuring that the United States remains the world’s most dynamic and innovative medical powerhouse.

Instead of importing price controls, Congress should prioritize enacting policies that improve access and affordability for patients, such as pharmacy benefit manager reform and reducing patient out-of-pocket costs, while preserving the free-market competition and innovation that save lives – both today and in the future.

America’s future – and the future of life-saving breakthroughs – depends on the choices we make today. Rejecting government price controls is essential to protecting patients, supporting progress, and securing our nation’s continued leadership in medical innovation.

Richard Bagger is a board member of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. He previously served as a New Jersey state legislator and as chief of staff to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.