Two Drug Manufacturers Deal with Trump Administration – Will It Reduce Drug Prices?
- chuckmelendi
- Oct 19, 2025
- 3 min read
Updated: Dec 8, 2025
I will start by saying what I have said before, getting drug manufacturers to build facilities and manufacturing drugs in the US is a great move. While many manufacturers already do this, it makes sense that if other companies are going to profit from selling in the US, then there should be some benefits for Americans, as in good paying jobs and home-grown innovation.
Secondly, while there has been a lot of chest-pounding over these same drug manufacturers agreeing to contract directly with the US government, the real savings will be for state and federal government agencies, not so much for patients. I provided some visuals to the drug supply chain to explain that in the post linked here
Here is why there will be little impact, even if many more manufacturers agree to negotiate.
Most patients will not see an impact from the price concessions since these agreements are for Medicaid patients and patients without insurance. Medicaid patients comprise around 24% of the US population and the uninsured comprise around 9%. These two deals do not impact the two largest healthcare populations in the US: insured and Medicare patients.
What the deals do:
Both Pfizer and AstraZeneca agreed to offer their drugs under a “most‑favored-nation” (MFN) pricing model for Medicaid, meaning the U.S. would pay no more than the lowest price the companies charge in other developed countries. Drugmakers currently offer Medicaid lower prices than other payers in the US as required under federal law.
People on Medicaid already pay almost nothing in out-of-pocket costs. Federal law caps those costs at $8 per prescription for people with the lowest incomes. In some states, people with Medicaid have no out-of-pocket costs.
The two deals so far do not affect the bulk of prescription drug coverage, as they do not directly apply to Medicare (which covers a large share of drug spending) or to many people with private insurance. Thus, many patients won’t benefit directly at their pharmacist checkout under their existing insurance.
A lot of the projected savings appear targeted at government spending (especially Medicaid, state budgets) rather than out-of-pocket patient costs.
The two companies will also offer discounted prices through a new platform (TrumpRx) that allows certain individuals to purchase drugs at reduced “cash” or direct‑to‑consumer rates.
Uninsured patients or people paying cash may benefit more via the TrumpRx direct offers, but only if their drug is listed, and if the discount is large enough to make a meaningful difference after discounts.
I asked ChatGPT to provide two real-world examples of how the Trump–Pfizer and Trump–AstraZeneca deals might save patients money depending on their insurance status and the structure of the deal.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services suggested at a recent event that the TrumpRx website may be useful to Americans who become uninsured under work requirements for Medicaid that were passed into law this summer. “We should have some mechanism to give you access to pharmaceuticals at the best prices possible,” he said of that group. “TrumpRx and other tools may be helpful.”
One other thing to consider is If TrumpRx became a major source of low-cost drugs, it could compete head-to-head with the private market pharmacies set up by Amazon, Walmart and Mark Cuban's Cost-Plus Pharmacy.
As I have said many times, the drug pricing system in the US is incredibly complicated. It is fantastic that the folks in DC are waking up to what many of us consider the biggest tax burden in the US, our healthcare costs. Bringing relief to Americans is going to take a lot more initiatives like the ones recently announced, but hopefully those making the decisions fully understand the effects on actual patients and the unintended consequences if the entire healthcare eco-system is not taken into account.
Sources
Comments