I learned in Cuba that the CDC’s strength is not in politics but in its people and their integrity. That lesson is as urgent today as it was in 1993. If we drain its strength, the price will be paid not in headlines, but in actual lives.

In Washington, senators and representatives usually fight for their states’ economic interests. Why then, when it comes to the biopharmaceutical industry that is so important to Massachusetts, are we such an outlier? This article examines the origins of this Massachusetts Paradox, what kinds of biopharma-related policies the state’s voters and politicians should logically support, and proposes a new approach to rallying our neighbors to support those policies. This campaign is rooted in a kind of engaging storytelling that all of us in the biopharma ecosystem, from startup to pharma and from investor to banker, can and should contribute to.

President Trump’s recent “most-favored nation” proposal seeks to compel companies to charge the same prices in the US as they do elsewhere. But the price controls sought by MFN override market negotiation and threaten to backfire by drastically reducing spending on R&D that drives tomorrow’s treatments and cures. That would undermine the return on investment America has been getting – financially and in terms of better health. Instead of price-controlling in the US, we must convince other countries to pay their fair share for novel medicines. This is an intractable trade puzzle that the US should begin trying to solve. And to end other countries’ freeriding, first we need to examine the extent of it.

Policies favored by both parties’ leadership – who find it politically easier to battle made-up bogeymen than tackle real issues – threaten to undermine our national health security and eviscerate America’s world-leading innovative drug development industry.

European central planners should stop trying to talk the US out of incentivizing the development of better medicines that then also help Europeans and the rest of the world. It’s one thing to argue that any one country can’t afford to pay more for new drugs. It’s another thing entirely to put new drugs in jeopardy for everybody by exporting that thinking to the one country whose market-based system has underpinned the last several decades of pharmaceutical advances.

Often, a drug’s initial approval only hints at its full therapeutic potential and the eventual number of patients who may benefit over time. Continued R&D investment can unlock much more utility before the drug ultimately goes generic, but those investments require adequate incentives.

If the FTC begins to look askance at M&A between commercial-stage biopharmaceutical companies and the innovative smaller biotechs that so often are the sources of new medicines, that would be bad news for future R&D and the patients who depend on our industry for life-saving medicines. That they might do so in the name of preserving or protecting innovation in the first place would add insult to injury.

Often, a drug’s initial approval only hints at its full therapeutic potential and the eventual number of patients who may benefit over time. Continued R&D investment can unlock much more utility before the drug ultimately goes generic, but those investments require adequate incentives.

We are deeply concerned the new Senate drug bill fails to deliver adequate relief to the nation’s seniors and their families. It falls short of a generational opportunity to meaningfully lower Medicare beneficiary and taxpayer out-of-pocket costs. The revised language is not good enough for patients, bad for biopharma innovation, and provides no guarantee that PBMs and insurance plans will share savings with beneficiaries.

As the 2022 midterms loom, drug pricing reform is again at the forefront of the conversation. And with inflation at 8.6%, it’s undeniable – Americans are hurting, and paying less at the pharmacy counter may alleviate part of that burden. But not all drug pricing reforms are created equal. So how would price controls impact R&D?