Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

Trump signs executive order aiming to slash prescription drug costs up to 90%

Published

6 minute read

From The Center Square

By

“Most powerful executive order on pharmacy pricing and health care ever in the history of our nation.”

President Donald Trump hosted a press conference with Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and other health administration officials Monday morning formally announcing an executive order aiming to drastically reduce what Americans pay for their prescription drugs up to 90%, according to Trump.

The order seeks to reform how much the U.S. pays for pharmaceutical drugs compared to other countries. On average, Americans pay nearly four times more than other countries for their prescription drugs, effectively subsidizing pharmaceutical companies’ research and development costs for others around the world, according to the administration.

The order was immediately met with skepticism by some critics.

“If Trump is serious about making real change rather than just issuing a press release, he will support legislation I will introduce to ensure we pay no more for prescription drugs than people in other major countries,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., posted on X after the press conference, touting his own legislation and saying Trump’s order will be “thrown out by the courts.”

“If we come together, we can get it passed in a few weeks,” Sanders said.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner and Johns Hopkins surgical oncologist Marty Makary was one of the officials who spoke at the press conference Monday morning.

“We didn’t take an oath to heal patients and then watch their life get ruined financially with their home, mortgage, retirement going down the drain with Go Fund Me campaigns, raising money from church communities and synagogues and friends they haven’t seen in 20 years to try to raise money – for what?” said Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary.

“For a system where Americans have been getting ripped off by 10, 12, 15 times higher prices than we see in other countries?”

Makary and others said the “fundamental problem” with American prescription drug costs is a lack of competition in the global marketplace, with Americans comprising only about 4% of the global population but supplying at least two-thirds of drug companies’ revenue globally.

“The fundamental problem in health care is that we’ve had non-competitive markets,” Makary continued. “We can do little things around the edges, or we can transform those markets into competitive markets, and that’s what this executive order does.”

The order intends to secure the “most-favored-nation” price for pharmaceutical drugs for the U.S., or the lowest price among its economic peer countries, through a series of actions. It instructs the U.S. secretary of commerce and the U.S. trade representative to “ensure” that other countries aren’t engaging in practices that “[force] American patients to pay for a disproportionate amount of global pharmaceutical research and development.” Kennedy is to work in coordination with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Mehmet Oz and others to develop most-favored-nation target pricing for pharmaceutical companies. It also directs Kennedy to devise direct-to-consumer purchasing programs for drug companies that abide by the president’s most-favored-nation pricing mandate for the U.S.

Oz called the order the “most powerful executive order on pharmacy pricing and health care ever in the history of our nation.”

If drug companies don’t comply, then the order directs Kennedy to create a rulemaking plan to impose the targeted pricing, or certify to Congress that the U.S. can import the drugs that remain too expensive under certain importation waivers. Certain drugs may even have their FDA approvals revoked by Makary.

Kennedy said some politicians, including Sanders, have been promising to “equalize” what the U.S. and Europe pay for pharmaceutical drugs for years, while knowing they can’t deliver on the promise because of the deep entanglement between the pharmaceutical industry and Congress. And even though he too has been promising to do something about the issue for years, he didn’t think he would see a solution emerge in his lifetime.

“I’m just so grateful to be here today. I never thought this would happen in my lifetime,” Kennedy said. “I have a couple of kids who are Democrats, who are big Bernie Sanders fans. When I told them what was going to happen, they had tears in their eyes, because they thought this was never going to happen in our lifetime.”

Kennedy and the other health administration officials who spoke praised the president for being willing to stand up to the industry and its powerful lobby, which has one to three times as many lobbyists in Washington as there are members of Congress and the Supreme Court, according to Kennedy.

“We finally have a president who’s willing to stand up for the American people,” Kennedy said.

Brownstone Institute

FDA Exposed: Hundreds of Drugs Approved without Proof They Work

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Maryanne Demasi

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved hundreds of drugs without proof that they work—and in some cases, despite evidence that they cause harm.

That’s the finding of a blistering two-year investigation by medical journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownleepublished by The Lever.

Reviewing more than 400 drug approvals between 2013 and 2022, the authors found the agency repeatedly ignored its own scientific standards.

One expert put it bluntly—the FDA’s threshold for evidence “can’t go any lower because it’s already in the dirt.”

A System Built on Weak Evidence

The findings were damning—73% of drugs approved by the FDA during the study period failed to meet all four basic criteria for demonstrating “substantial evidence” of effectiveness.

Those four criteria—presence of a control group, replication in two well-conducted trials, blinding of participants and investigators, and the use of clinical endpoints like symptom relief or extended survival—are supposed to be the bedrock of drug evaluation.

Yet only 28% of drugs met all four criteria—40 drugs met none.

These aren’t obscure technicalities—they are the most basic safeguards to protect patients from ineffective or dangerous treatments.

But under political and industry pressure, the FDA has increasingly abandoned them in favour of speed and so-called “regulatory flexibility.”

Since the early 1990s, the agency has relied heavily on expedited pathways that fast-track drugs to market.

In theory, this balances urgency with scientific rigour. In practice, it has flipped the process. Companies can now get drugs approved before proving that they work, with the promise of follow-up trials later.

But, as Lenzer and Brownlee revealed, “Nearly half of the required follow-up studies are never completed—and those that are often fail to show the drugs work, even while they remain on the market.”

“This represents a seismic shift in FDA regulation that has been quietly accomplished with virtually no awareness by doctors or the public,” they added.

More than half the approvals examined relied on preliminary data—not solid evidence that patients lived longer, felt better, or functioned more effectively.

And even when follow-up studies are conducted, many rely on the same flawed surrogate measures rather than hard clinical outcomes.

The result: a regulatory system where the FDA no longer acts as a gatekeeper—but as a passive observer.

Cancer Drugs: High Stakes, Low Standards

Nowhere is this failure more visible than in oncology.

Only 3 out of 123 cancer drugs approved between 2013 and 2022 met all four of the FDA’s basic scientific standards.

Most—81%—were approved based on surrogate endpoints like tumour shrinkage, without any evidence that they improved survival or quality of life.

Take Copiktra, for example—a drug approved in 2018 for blood cancers. The FDA gave it the green light based on improved “progression-free survival,” a measure of how long a tumour stays stable.

But a review of post-marketing data showed that patients taking Copiktra died 11 months earlier than those on a comparator drug.

It took six years after those studies showed the drug reduced patients’ survival for the FDA to warn the public that Copiktra should not be used as a first- or second-line treatment for certain types of leukaemia and lymphoma, citing “an increased risk of treatment-related mortality.”

Elmiron: Ineffective, Dangerous—And Still on the Market

Another striking case is Elmiron, approved in 1996 for interstitial cystitis—a painful bladder condition.

The FDA authorized it based on “close to zero data,” on the condition that the company conduct a follow-up study to determine whether it actually worked.

That study wasn’t completed for 18 years—and when it was, it showed Elmiron was no better than placebo.

In the meantime, hundreds of patients suffered vision loss or blindness. Others were hospitalized with colitis. Some died.

Yet Elmiron is still on the market today. Doctors continue to prescribe it.

“Hundreds of thousands of patients have been exposed to the drug, and the American Urological Association lists it as the only FDA-approved medication for interstitial cystitis,” Lenzer and Brownlee reported.

“Dangling Approvals” and Regulatory Paralysis

The FDA even has a term—”dangling approvals”—for drugs that remain on the market despite failed or missing follow-up trials.

One notorious case is Avastin, approved in 2008 for metastatic breast cancer.

It was fast-tracked, again, based on ‘progression-free survival.’ But after five clinical trials showed no improvement in overall survival—and raised serious safety concerns—the FDA moved to revoke its approval for metastatic breast cancer.

The backlash was intense.

Drug companies and patient advocacy groups launched a campaign to keep Avastin on the market. FDA staff received violent threats. Police were posted outside the agency’s building.

The fallout was so severe that for more than two decades afterwards, the FDA did not initiate another involuntary drug withdrawal in the face of industry opposition.

Billions Wasted, Thousands Harmed

Between 2018 and 2021, US taxpayers—through Medicare and Medicaid—paid $18 billion for drugs approved under the condition that follow-up studies would be conducted. Many never were.

The cost in lives is even higher.

A 2015 study found that 86% of cancer drugs approved between 2008 and 2012 based on surrogate outcomes showed no evidence that they helped patients live longer.

An estimated 128,000 Americans die each year from the effects of properly prescribed medications—excluding opioid overdoses. That’s more than all deaths from illegal drugs combined.

A 2024 analysis by Danish physician Peter Gøtzsche found that adverse effects from prescription medicines now rank among the top three causes of death globally.

Doctors Misled by the Drug Labels

Despite the scale of the problem, most patients—and most doctors—have no idea.

A 2016 survey published in JAMA asked practising physicians a simple question—what does FDA approval actually mean?

Only 6% got it right.

The rest assumed that it meant the drug had shown clear, clinically meaningful benefits—such as helping patients live longer or feel better—and that the data was statistically sound.

But the FDA requires none of that.

Drugs can be approved based on a single small study, a surrogate endpoint, or marginal statistical findings. Labels are often based on limited data, yet many doctors take them at face value.

Harvard researcher Aaron Kesselheim, who led the survey, said the results were “disappointing, but not entirely surprising,” noting that few doctors are taught about how the FDA’s regulatory process actually works.

Instead, physicians often rely on labels, marketing, or assumptions—believing that if the FDA has authorized a drug, it must be both safe and effective.

But as The Lever investigation shows, that is not a safe assumption.

And without that knowledge, even well-meaning physicians may prescribe drugs that do little good—and cause real harm.

Who Is the FDA Working for?

In interviews with more than 100 experts, patients, and former regulators, Lenzer and Brownlee found widespread concern that the FDA has lost its way.

Many pointed to the agency’s dependence on industry money. A BMJ investigation in 2022 found that user fees now fund two-thirds of the FDA’s drug review budget—raising serious questions about independence.

Yale physician and regulatory expert Reshma Ramachandran said the system is in urgent need of reform.

“We need an agency that’s independent from the industry it regulates and that uses high-quality science to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs,” she told The Lever. “Without that, we might as well go back to the days of snake oil and patent medicines.”

For now, patients remain unwitting participants in a vast, unspoken experiment—taking drugs that may never have been properly tested, trusting a regulator that too often fails to protect them.

And as Lenzer and Brownlee conclude, that trust is increasingly misplaced.

Republished from the author’s Substack

 

Author

Maryanne Demasi, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is an investigative medical reporter with a PhD in rheumatology, who writes for online media and top tiered medical journals. For over a decade, she produced TV documentaries for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and has worked as a speechwriter and political advisor for the South Australian Science Minister.

Continue Reading

Health

Red Deer Hospital Lottery 2025 Winners

Published on

The Red Deer Regional Health Foundation is thrilled to announce the winners of this year’s Red Deer Hospital Lottery prizes – including the Dream Home, a $100,000.00 cash prize, and Mega Bucks 50.

James Smith of Spruce View has won the $100,000.00 cash prize.

Montey Brehaut of Red Deer has won the Mega Bucks 50 jackpot, taking home $301,702.50.

The grand prize Sorento Custom Homes Dream Home, including furnishings by Urban Barn and worth $1,074,472 – has been awarded to Oscar Gunnlaugson of Sylvan Lake.

The winner announcements took place at noon on June 26 , 2025 – and was streamed live on Facebook from Red Deer Regional Hospital Center.

“We’re excited to celebrate this year’s winners and deeply grateful to everyone who supported the lottery,” said Manon Therriault, CEO of the Red Deer Regional Health Foundation. “Funds raised will directly enhance patient care at Red Deer Regional Hospital Centre.”

This year’s lottery proceeds will fund essential new and replacement equipment, ensuring Red Deer Regional Hospital Center can continue to serve the 500,000 people who rely on it. While plans for the hospital expansion move forward, healthcare doesn’t wait. Patients in our community need access
to life-saving technology today, and supporting Red Deer Hospital Lottery has made that possible.

A full list of winners, including electronics prize recipients, will be posted on July 2 at reddeerhospitallottery.ca.

Winners will also receive instructions on how to claim their prizes by mail.

The keys to the Dream Home will be presented at a special ceremony this summer.

Continue Reading

Trending

X