“This represents years of regulatory initiatives demonstrated by China, which enabled it to continue to advance into a key source of credible innovation within the global pharmaceutical landscape.”

“​MFN will likely not lead to other countries paying more for medicines. Without any wealthy country paying market price for medicines, companies cannot expect to recuperate the R&D costs for the medicines they create. This will depress innovation and cause drug shortages to a degree that is entirely unacceptable.”

“We need to think about the cost of our research and development activities and how to do it cheaper. We have to be competitive with what China is doing.”

"If we fail to halt the drift of biomedical discovery toward China, we risk ceding a strategic technological advantage that may prove all but impossible to win back."

“Most favored nation is a deeply flawed proposal that would devastate our nation’s small- and mid-size biotech companies – the very companies that are the leading drivers of medical innovation in the United States and the cornerstone of America’s biotechnology leadership.”

"China is starting to become a critical partner and competitor in the race for next-generation therapies.”

"Harnessing our innovative strength will require prioritization. We must treat biological data as geopolitically important, as China already does. We must ensure that researchers have the tools they need to continue conducting the best research in the United States. And we must emphasize safety, security, and responsibility—so that the norms and standards of innovation align with American values and interests."

“At a time when China is becoming an increasingly fierce competitor in this industry, policymakers should stop approaching America’s biopharmaceutical industry with price controls and tariffs and instead start supporting it in two key ways: 1. by insisting that other countries pay their fair share for medicines—thereby raising the floor instead of racing to the bottom; and 2. by investing in public-private partnerships to develop the technological innovations that can help companies cost-competitively manufacture medicines in the United States (generic and innovative alike).”

"China is no longer a market of “me-too” drugs. Increasingly, the country is home to first-in-class or globally competitive therapies, particularly in areas like oncology, autoimmune disease, and cell therapy. What’s more, the price point is compelling – some Chinese-developed assets are “30% off” typical market valuations, creating significant upside for early backers."

“Importing foreign price controls on prescription drugs into the United States will lead to much less revenue for the pharmaceutical industry — and much less money to invest in the development of the next generation of medicines.”

“MFN is nothing more than a destructive price control that will distort the market and result in fewer new drugs being developed. The goal of lowering drug prices is noble, but instituting price controls that will align U.S. prices with foreign countries will backfire and end up harming patients.”

“But tackling the problem by taking it out on the innovators—by importing other countries’ backward policies—will only harm the world’s greatest producer of cures and replicate those countries’ failing systems. Europe’s price controls have reduced its once-thriving pharmaceutical industry to dust, while Europeans (and Australians and Canadians) have access to far fewer new drugs than are available to Americans, including breakthrough cancer treatments. Those nations also show how a lack of innovation leads to even higher healthcare costs in the longer run.”

“While intended to put America first, the EO will have precisely the opposite effect, reduce the United States’ global lead in both pharmaceutical innovation and patient access to novel drugs and therapies.”

"These trends threaten to shortchange the American biotech ecosystem. Every dollar spent to license compounds from China is a dollar diverted from innovation corridors such as South San Francisco and North Carolina’s Research Triangle."

"To win the biotechnology race, we need to start by getting our own house in order. Currently, the U.S. government has no cohesive, intentional biotechnology strategy, while China is gaining ground thanks to its aggressive and carefully coordinated state-led initiatives."

"China has long used multi-year plans and preferential state policies to encourage the development of key technologies. Biotech is no different…"

“MFN dodges meaningful reform now and guarantees long-term harm, distorting market incentives and undercutting the innovation patients rely on.”

“The current system works by ensuring broad patient access to medicine while enabling companies to reinvest in research and development. Drastic changes such as MFN pricing would upend this balance and threaten job creation and investment in states like Georgia.”

“America leads the world in drug development because we reward risk-taking. MFN would reverse that -- cutting off the lifeblood of future cures and weakening our global leadership. We urge policymakers to reject MFN and pursue smarter reforms that improve access without sacrificing innovation. The future of medicine depends on it.”

“But price controls virtually always lead to unintended consequences: shortages of the price-controlled products or services; lower quality as manufacturers cut corners to meet government-imposed price points; less innovation, since companies don’t know if they’ll be allowed to recover their costs; and a black market where people pay more to get what they want or need.”

“While linking drug prices in the United States to the lowest prices paid in other countries may generate short-term savings, such policies carry significant risks for Americans. These include delays in access to treatments, reduced treatment options, and increased strain on health care providers. Any approach to drug pricing reform must be transparent, focused on sustaining access to high quality, person-centered care, and grounded in patient perspectives.”

“Rather than accept the price controls’ high burden, the U.S. should focus on improving the efficiency of the drug pricing market. Focusing on these policy-created inefficiencies can generate significant savings for patients while still promoting the important goals of increasing access and promoting innovation.”

"Based on two years of research and consultation with private and public experts, this report comes to a sobering, even frightening, conclusion: China is quickly ascending to biotechnology dominance, having made biotechnology a strategic priority for 20 years.1 To remain competitive, the United States must take swift action in the next three years. Otherwise, we risk falling behind, a setback from which we may never recover."

“If the U.S. continues to hamstring its own industry, we will risk ceding the future of medicine to China, our access to medical innovations, and a robust industrial research and manufacturing base with high-paying jobs that follow.”

“Although we anticipate a certain level of U.S. restrictions, which should be largely manageable, policy escalation could translate into more uncertainties for China biotech’s long-term penetration into the global market."

"In the face of this onslaught, no single action will be enough; there is no silver bullet that will singlehandedly delay China’s progress by a decade or secure U.S. dominance for a generation. Rather, the U.S. government must aggressively deploy all the tools at its disposal to preserve American biotechnology leadership."

"China is outpacing the US in the volume of high-impact research in 57 of the 64 critical technologies in ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker. The US’s main remaining advantage is downstream in implementing technology, and even that’s at risk as China’s significant S&T investments pay off."

“When we speak of access, it includes affordability and availability. Change that does not improve access, does not make life better for people in Arizona or across our nation. A Most Favored Nations policy in the United States, if not carefully implemented, would harm the patients we work to help and stifle the thriving health innovation ecosystem that Arizonans have spent decades building.”

“Adoption of foreign price control schemes ultimately means vulnerable patients have decreased access to medicines they need. Foreign countries that employ price control schemes and socialized medicine essentially discriminate against rare diseases and chronically ill patients by devaluing innovation and implementing excessive access restrictions.”

"If the United States instead imports other countries' price-control schemes, global medical R&D will collapse, with no country but China likely to pick up the slack."

"Investing in homegrown research, development and manufacturing will allow us to stay ahead of China…"

“Importing European-style price controls won’t help Americans access medicines or make them cheaper. Rather, these policies will dampen innovation and R&D, threaten patient access and empower bureaucrats abroad to undermine America’s health system.”

"China’s approach to recruiting and retaining foreign talent stands in stark contrast. The Chinese government invests vast sums of money to attract international students and workers, using state-of-the-art, multi-million-dollar research facilities and large cash incentives to lure them to China."

“Policies across-the-board must be consistent to enable robust innovation and investment across all sectors. That means strongly rebuking price controls and government micro-management of all business sectors.”

“The President is right to object to foreign governments' price controls on pharmaceuticals, which result in America disproportionately funding most pharmaceutical research. However, the answer is not to import foreign government price control policies into the United States, but instead to pressure foreign governments to give up their price controls.”

“Any effort to ease Americans’ health care burden is admirable, but the most-favored-nation policy is not the approach to take and it does not take into consideration the real-world cost.”