Connect with us

Published

on

If you went anywhere in the world, you could get a prescription filled for 40% to 60% less than it costs in the U.S.

Joe Biden on Feb. 22, 2024, at a campaign reception

Its well documented that Americans pay high prices for health care. But do they pay double or more for prescriptions compared with the rest of the world? President Joe Biden said they did.

This story was produced in partnership withPolitiFact. It can be republished for free.

“If I put you on Air Force One with me, and you have a prescription no matter what its for, minor or major and I flew you to Toronto or flew to London or flew you to Brazil or flew you anywhere in the world, I can get you that prescription filled for somewhere between 40 to 60% less than it costs here,” Biden said Feb. 22 at a campaign reception in California.

He followed up by touting provisions in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to lower drug prices, including capping insulin at $35 a month for Medicare enrollees and limiting older Americans out-of-pocket prescription spending to $2,000 a year starting in 2025. The law also authorized Medicare to negotiate prices directly with drug companies for 10 prescription drugs, a list that will expand over time.

Research has consistently found that, overall, U.S. prescription drug prices are significantly higher, sometimes two to four times as high, compared with prices in other high-income industrialized countries. Unbranded generic drugs are an exception and are typically cheaper in the U.S. compared with other countries. (Branded generics, a different category, are close to breaking even with other countries.)

However, such factors as country-specific pricing, confidential rebates, and other discounts can obscure actual prices, making comparisons harder.

“The available evidence suggests that the U.S., on average, has higher prices for prescription drugs, and thats particularly true for brand-name drugs,” said Cynthia Cox, director of the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, which tracks trends and issues affecting U.S. health care system performance. “Americans also have relatively high out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs, compared to people in similarly large and wealthy nations.”

Andrew Mulcahy, a senior health economist at Rand Corp., a nonpartisan research organization, agreed that Bidens overall sentiment is on target but ignores some complexities.

He said price comparisons his team has conducted reflect the amounts wholesalers pay manufacturers for their drugs, which can differ sharply from prices consumers and their drug plans  pay. 

“In many of those other countries, [patients] pay nothing,” Mulcahy said. “So I think that’s part of the complication here when we talk about prices; there are so many different drugs, prices, and systems at work.” Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing. Your Email Address Sign Up

What International Drug Pricing Comparisons Show

A 2024 Rand study that Mulcahy led found that, across all drugs, U.S. prices were 2.78 times as high as prices in 33 other countries, based on 2022 data. The report evaluated most countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, a group of 38 advanced, industrialized nations.

The gap was largest for brand-name drugs, the study found, with U.S. prices averaging 4.22 times as high as those in the studied nations. After adjusting for manufacturer-funded rebates, U.S. prices for brand-name drugs remained more than triple those in other countries.

The U.S. pays less for one prescription category: unbranded, generic drugs, which are about 33% less than in other studied countries. These types of drugs account for about 90% of filled prescriptions in the U.S., yet make up only one-fifth of overall prescription spending.

“The analysis used manufacturer gross prices for drugs because net prices the amounts ultimately retained by manufacturers after negotiated rebates and other discounts are applied are not systematically available,” a news release about the report said. 

People with health insurance pay prices that include both markups and discounts negotiated with insurers. Uninsured people may pay a pharmacy’s “usual and customary” price which tends to be higher than net prices paid by others or a lower amount using a manufacturer discount program. But many of these adjustments are confidential, making it hard to quantify how they affect net prices.

In 2021, the Government Accountability Office released an analysis of prices of 20 brand-name drugs in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and France. The study found that retail prices were more than two to four times as high as in the U.S.

Like Rand, the agency adjusted for rebates and other price concessions for its U.S. estimate, but the other countries estimates reflected gross prices without potential discounts. 

“As a result, the actual differences between U.S. prices and those of the other countries were likely larger than GAO estimates,” the report said.

Another analysis by the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker that Cox co-authored compared the prices of seven brand-name drugs in the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and found that some U.S. prices were two to four times as high. For unbranded, generic drugs, the price gaps were smaller.

“Despite the fact that the U.S. pays less for generic drugs and Americans appear to use more generic drugs than people in other countries, this did not offset the higher prices paid for brand-name drugs,” Cox said.

The Peterson-KFF report, using 2019 OECD data, found that the U.S. spent about $1,126 per person on prescription medicines, higher than any peer nation, with comparable countries spending $552. This includes spending by insurers and out-of-pocket consumer costs.

“Private and public insurance programs cover a similar share of prescription medicine spending in the U.S. compared to peer nations,” the report noted. “However, the steep costs in the U.S. still contribute to high U.S. health care spending and are passed on to Americans in the form of higher premiums and taxpayer-funded public programs.”

Why Is the US Such an Outlier on Drug Pricing?

The U.S. has much more limited price negotiation with drug manufacturers; other countries often rely on a single regulatory body to determine whether prices are acceptable and negotiate accordingly. Many nations conduct public cost-benefit analyses on new drugs, comparing them with others on the market. If those studies find the cost is too high, or the health benefit too low, theyll reject the drug application. Some countries also set pricing controls

In the U.S., negotiations involve smaller government programs and thousands of separate private health plans, lowering the bargaining power.

“Its complicated. Everything in health care costs more here, not just [prescriptions],” said Joseph Antos, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, in an email interview. Although the governments new Medicare drug negotiation is the United States’ first attempt to set drug prices, Antos noted that U.S. drug price negotiation still doesnt operate as price-setting for prescriptions in Europe does because its limited to a few drugs and doesnt apply to Medicaid or private insurance.

Drug patents and exclusivity is another factor keeping U.S. drug prices higher, experts said, as U.S. pharmaceutical companies have amassed patents to prevent generic competitors from bringing cheaper versions to market.

Drug companies have also argued that high prices reflect research and development costs. Without higher consumer prices to offset research costs, the companies say, new medicines wouldnt be discovered or brought to market. But recent stdies havent supported that.  

One 2023 study found that from 1999 to 2018, the worlds largest 15 biopharmaceutical companies spent more on selling and general and administrative activities, which include marketing, than on research and development. The study also said most new medicines developed during this period offered little to no clinical benefit over existing treatments.

Our Ruling

Biden said, if you went “anywhere in the world,” you could get a prescription filled for 40% to 60% less than it costs in the U.S.

He exaggerated by saying “anywhere in the world,” but for comparable high-income, industrialized countries, hes mostly on target.

Research has consistently shown that Americans pay significantly higher prices overall for prescription medication, averaging between two times to four times as high, depending on the study. The U.S. pays less for unbranded, generic drugs, but those lower prices don’t offset the higher prices paid for brand-name drugs, researchers said.

Factors including country-specific pricing, confidential rebates. and other discounts also obscure true consumer prices, making comparisons difficult.

Bidens statement is accurate but needs clarification and additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

PolitiFact copy chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this report. Our sources:WhiteHouse.gov,remarks by President Joe Biden at a Campaign Reception | Los Altos Hills, California, Feb. 22, 2024

PolitiFact,“Are US Prescription Drug Prices 10 Times Higher Than Those in Other Nations? Only Sometimes,” May 18, 2023

Rand Corp.,“International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons,”Feb. 1, 2024

Rand Corp.,“Prescription Drug Prices in the U.S. Are 2.78 Times Those in Other Countries,” Feb. 1, 2024

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker,“How Do Prescription Drug Costs in the United States Compare to Other Countries?“

Peter G. Peterson Foundation,“How Much Does the United States Spend on Prescription Drugs Compared With Other Countries?”Nov. 7, 2022

Government Accountability Office,“Prescription Drugs: U.S. Prices for Selected Brand Drugs Were Higher on Average Than Prices in Australia, Canada, and France,” March 29, 2021

Commonwealth Fund,“How Prices for the First 10 Drugs Up for U.S. Medicare Price Negotiations Compare Internationally,”Jan. 4, 2024

C-SPAN,“Health Care Advocates and Researchers Testify on Prescription Drug Prices,” Feb. 8, 2024

Center for American Progress,“Following the Money: Untangling U.S. Prescription Drug Financing,” Oct. 12, 2023

Congressional Budget Office,“Prescription Drugs: Spending, Use and Prices,” January 2022

The New York Times,“Six Reasons Drug Prices Are So High in the U.S.,” Jan. 17, 2024

The Commonwealth Fund,“Paying for Prescription Drugs Around the World: Why Is the U.S. an Outlier?”Oct. 5, 2017

Forbes,“U.S. Drug Prices Sky-High in International Comparison,”July 22, 2022

The BMJ,“High Drug Prices Are Not Justified by Industrys Spending on Research and Development,” February 2023

Wired,“Big Pharma Says Drug Prices Reflect R&D Cost. Researchers Call BS,” Oct. 13, 2022

Email interview, Kelly Scully, spokesperson for the White House, Feb. 26-27, 2024

Phone interview, Andrew Mulcahy, senior health economist at Rand Corp., Feb. 27, 2024

Email interview, Michelle Mello, law and health policy professor at Stanford University, Feb. 27, 2024

Email interview, Joseph Antos, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Feb. 26, 2024

Email interview, Cynthia Cox, director of the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker at KFF, Feb. 27, 2024

READ ABOUT OUR PROCESS:

The Principles of the Truth-o-Meter Related Topics Health Care Costs Health Care Reform Biden Administration KFF Health News & PolitiFact HealthCheck Prescription Drugs Contact Us Submit a Story Tip

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump’s nuclear power push weakens regulator and poses safety risks, former officials warn

Published

on

By

Trump's nuclear power push weakens regulator and poses safety risks, former officials warn

Plant Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant in Waynesboro, GA, August 15, 2024.

Van Applegate | CNBC

President Donald Trump‘s push to approve nuclear plants as quickly as possible threatens to weaken the independent regulator tasked with protecting public health and safety, former federal officials warn. 

Trump issued four sweeping executive orders in May that aim to quadruple nuclear power by 2050 in the U.S. The White House and the technology industry view nuclear as powerful source of reliable electricity that can help meet the growing energy needs of artificial intelligence.

The most consequential of Trump’s orders aims to slash regulations and speed up power plant approvals through an overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC is an independent agency established by Congress in 1975 to make sure that nuclear reactors are deployed and operated safely.

Trump accuses the NRC of “risk aversion” in his order, blaming the regulator for how few nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. over the past three decades. The president says that the NRC is focused on protecting the public from “the most remote risks,” arguing that such a cautious approach to approving plants restricts access to reliable electricity.

“We’ll be very safe, but we’ll be fast and safe,” Trump said about expediting nuclear plants at a conference on energy and artificial intelligence in Pittsburgh on Tuesday. The president said his administration would get a “whole different group of people” to regulate the industry.

But three former NRC chairs who spoke to CNBC say Trump is blaming the regulator that protects the public, when the industry’s fundamental problem is that new nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build. The chairs were appointed by Democratic presidents. CNBC also spoke to the chief of staff for a chair appointed by George W. Bush.

Only two new reactors have been built from scratch in the U.S. over the past 30 years. Those new units at Plant Vogtle in Georgia came in $18 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule. Two reactors in South Carolina were canceled in the middle of construction in 2017 due to cost overruns. The mismanagement of the Georgia and South Carolina projects led to the bankruptcy of industry stalwart Westinghouse.

Trump’s intervention at the NRC threatens the independence that the regulator needs to protect the public interest, the former chairs said. If NRC independence is compromised, the regulator could become vulnerable to industry or government influence in ways that raise the risk of a nuclear accident, they warned.

Independence threatened

Trump’s executive order is unprecedented in the history of the NRC and it is dangerous, said Allison Macfarlane, who led the NRC as chairperson from 2012 to 2014. The Fukushima nuclear accident is an example of what can happen when safety regulators are not independent, said Macfarlane, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.

The 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan resulted in a severe accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. An investigation by Japan’s parliament concluded that the accident was manmade and found that collusion between government, industry and regulators was the root cause.

Meta signs 20-year nuclear power agreement with Constellation Energy

Japan’s regulators and government focused on promoting nuclear power as safe and did not force the operator to implement measures that would have made the plant less vulnerable to a natural disaster, according to the 2012 investigation. In the wake of the accident, Japan shut down all of its nuclear plants for safety inspections, losing a power source that supplied 30% of the nation’s electricity.

“There was a massive impact on the economy and that is an issue of national security,” Macfarlane said of the accident in Japan.

“The reason why we have independent regulators, and by independent I mean free of industry and political influence, is to protect the public safety and to protect national security,” she said.

Slashing regulations

Trump’s executive order seems more focused on approving reactors fast than safety, said Stephen Burns, who chaired the NRC from 2015 to 2017. The order requires the NRC to make final decisions within 18 months on applications to build and operate nuclear plants. It calls for the regulator to make decisions even faster when possible.

“To the extent it’s saying NRC is the problem and we’re more concerned with deadlines than we are with the safety case — that’s where it concerns me,” said Burns, who was also appointed to the commission by Obama.

The NRC is also ordered to undertake a “wholesale revision” of its regulations and work with the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Government Efficiency to accomplish this.

One of the goals of revising NRC regulations is to create a process to approve at a “high volume” microreactors and small modular reactors, advanced nuclear technologies that the industry believes will one day make plants cheaper and faster to build.

But these advanced reactors often have designs that are very different from the existing U.S. fleet and present different safety profiles as a consequence, said Richard Meserve, who chaired the NRC from 1999 to 2003. These new designs have not been deployed in the real world, and some use different reactor coolants such as sodium or molten salt rather than light water in traditional plants.

“We have very strict deadlines on reactors of a type that have not yet been thoroughly reviewed,” said Meserve, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. “To set deadlines seems to me to be very imprudent. There has to be a careful analysis that is guided by data that may not be available even for some of these reactors.”

Why Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta are investing in nuclear power

And it’s unclear what role OMB and DOGE are playing in revising the NRC’s regulations. The NRC and White House declined to comment when asked whether OMB and DOGE would have the final say over how regulations are changed.

OMB has always reviewed major NRC regulations as a matter of procedure, said Paul Dickman, who served as chief of staff for NRC chair Dale Klein, an appointee of President George W. Bush. (Klein, when asked to comment, referred questions to Dickman. CNBC also reached out to Kristine Svinicki, who was appointed as chair during Trump’s first administration, but didn’t hear back.)

The question now is whether OMB and DOGE will also be passing judgement on the technical content of the regulations, Dickman said. The pair’s undefined role in the review process introduces uncertainty that could make the NRC vulnerable to political interference, he said.

“Are they going to reject something because they didn’t like an opinion?” Dickman asked. “What’s the basis of that? There’s no guidelines for review.”

Trump is “committed to modernizing nuclear regulations, streamlining regulatory barriers, and reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while prioritizing safety and resilience,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said.

The NRC is “working quickly to implement Executive Orders to modernize our regulatory and licensing processes while protecting public health and safety,” spokesperson Scott Burnell said.

Staff cuts

Trump has also ordered a staff reduction at the NRC at a time when the regulator is now facing tighter deadlines and a major overhaul of its regulations, the former chairs said. An executive order that calls for staff cuts “is just another way to incentivize people to look for other jobs,” Dickman said.

“It’s a loss of personnel and competency which is really probably the most worrisome part of all this stuff,” Dickman said.

A senior White House official told reporters in May that the size of the staff cuts had not been determined. The executive order does allow for staffing to increase for plant licensing. The NRC and White House declined to comment when asked by CNBC about the potential cuts and whether licensing staff would be beefed up.

Last month, Trump fired NRC Commissioner Christopher Hanson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden. Hanson said in a statement that Trump terminated his position “without cause contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.” The White House declined to comment when asked why Hanson was fired.

“This is part of the overthrow of the NRC as an independent agency,” Meserve said.

Political interference, whether real or perceived, threatens undermine U.S. public confidence in nuclear power, Dickman said. Such interference would also tarnish the NRC’s reputation as the international gold standard for approving reactors, which would make it more difficult for U.S. companies to sell nuclear technology abroad, according to Macfarlane, Burns and Meserve.

“Public confidence in the safety of reactors is enhanced by the fact that there is an independent regulator that’s separated from the political process,” Meserve said. “There is a danger when you mix in political considerations and promotion along with the safety mission that the safety mission gets suppressed to some extent — and you could end up with some very bad mistakes being made.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Environment

Mangrove’s new lithium plant will boost North America’s EV game

Published

on

By

Mangrove's new lithium plant will boost North America's EV game

Mangrove Lithium is scaling up in a big way to produce more homegrown lithium in North America. The Vancouver, Canada-based company just announced it will build another new facility, and this one will crank out 20,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium yearly – enough to power over 500,000 EVs, as much as North America’s current refining capacity.

Mangrove has signed memoranda of understanding (MoUs) to lock in demand with multiple major US battery gigafactories. These deals cover offtake for the entire output of the new refinery. However, the company has not yet announced the refinery’s site location.

“Global customers are recognizing that Mangrove is a strategic partner in securing lithium supply,” said CEO and founder Saad Dara.

Annie Liu, Mangrove’s chief strategy and commercial officer, added, “Having negotiated deals for automakers like Tesla and Ford, I’ve seen just how crucial a reliable Western lithium supply chain is – and that’s exactly what we’re building here.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The new plant will go beyond Mangrove’s current electrochemical refining tech by adding spodumene concentrate processing – in other words, extending the company’s operations further upstream in the lithium supply chain. It’s a big move toward reshoring parts of lithium refining, which is still heavily dominated by China.

Dara warned that the global lithium supply chain is getting more fragile by the day, so “Mangrove is building the foundation for a self-reliant, scalable, and sustainable North American lithium future,” he said.

His urgency isn’t hypothetical: Earlier this year, China floated the idea of banning exports of key lithium extraction and processing tech. With most lithium still processed in China, the idea of being cut off sent a clear message – North America needs local capacity, and fast.

Mangrove says its electrochemical refining process is flexible when it comes to feedstock and output, which helps reduce costs, shrink carbon footprint, and eliminate waste. That flexibility could be a game-changer as the continent tries to build out a cleaner and more secure lithium supply chain.

Meanwhile, Mangrove’s first commercial plant in Delta, British Columbia, is already under construction. Backed by a USD 35 million funding round, the project is on track to come online by the end of the year. That plant alone will supply enough battery-grade lithium to power about 25,000 EVs annually. It will be North America’s first electrochemical lithium refining facility.

Read more: Critical EV battery materials face a supply crunch by 2030


The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Hyundai is using its three-row IONIQ 9 EV with a built-in drone launch pad to save the planet

Published

on

By

Hyundai is using its three-row IONIQ 9 EV with a built-in drone launch pad to save the planet

Meet the Hyundai IONIQ 9 Seed Ball Drone Station. Hyundai’s new three-row EV is more than just a family hauler — it’s now using drones to help restore forests.

Hyundai IONIQ 9 EV restores forests with drones

After delivering the first customer models just a few months ago, Hyundai’s three-row electric SUV is already doing more than just cutting emissions.

Hyundai introduced the IONIQ 9 Seed Ball Drone Station on Thursday, a modified version of the brand’s largest EV, complete with a built-in drone launch pad.

The interior features a dedicated drone operation PC, dual monitors, and a swivel seat, essentially transforming it into “a fully functional mobile office.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Hyundai’s specially designed EV, built in collaboration with Guru E&T, is being used to plant trees in areas that are hard to access. Equipped with vehicle-to-load (V2L) capabilities, Hyundai’s electric vehicles supply power for the drones in remote areas.

The drones scatter “seed balls,” which are clay spheres filled with soil, organic matter, and seeds throughout the area.

Hyundai-IONIQ-9-EV-drones
Hyundai IONIQ 9 Seed Ball Drone Station interior (Source: Hyundai)

The modified IONIQ 9 is part of the Korean automaker’s ongoing Smart Forest Restoration Program. It follows the IONIQ 5 Monitoring Drone Station, launched in 2023.

Hyundai is utilizing its new EV models to help restore forests in Uljin, Korea, which were severely impacted by widespread wildfires in 2022.

Hyundai-IONIQ-9-EV-drones
Hyundai IONIQ 5 and IONIQ 9 EVs are restoring forests with drones (Source: Hyundai)

The efforts are part of Hyundai’s forest-building efforts called the IONIQ Forest project. Launched in 2016, the project covers 13 countries, including the US. Hyundai plans to expand the drone projects into other regions in the future.

After deliveries began in the US in late May, Hyundai reported IONIQ 9 sales reached over 1,000 by the end of June.

Hyundai-EV-drones
2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 (Source: Hyundai)

Hyundai’s three-row electric SUV starts at $60,555 with an EPA-est range of up to 335 miles. Like the IONIQ 5, it also features a native NACS port to access Tesla Superchargers.

The IONIQ 5 remains one of the top-selling EVs in the US, with over 19,000 sold in the first half of 2025. With leases starting at just $179 per month, the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 (now with more range and a built-in NACS port) is hard to pass up right now with the EV tax credit set to expire at the end of September.

Since both the IONIQ 9 and IONIQ 5 are built at Hyundai’s new EV plant in Georgia, they still qualify for the $7,500 tax credit until the deadline.

Looking to snag the savings while they’re still here? You can use our links below to find the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 5 and 2026 IONIQ 9 in your area.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending