With CMS set to announce this week the “maximum fair prices” for 2027’s cohort of drugs under the IRA’s “negotiation” program and the recent the three-year anniversary of that law’s passage, it seemed a good time to take stock of just how the law is influencing the biopharma investors’ and innovators’ collective drug development choices. A collection of empirical evidence.

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.

The treatment of NDA-path drugs in the Inflation Reduction Act materially degrades the investment case for these treatments in age-related diseases and thus jeopardizes future biotechnology progress and the health of America’s seniors.

If the Biden drug plan passes, the United States will be consciously volunteering to put less capital to work in a large industry where we lead the world. No real argument can stand against the fact that less capital means fewer new products for patients.