Now-resigned CEO Lockwood-Taylor features prominently.

https://www.woodtv.com/news/grand-rapids/perrigo-ceo-out-over-personal-conduct-allegations/

Perrigo CEO out over ‘personal conduct’ allegations

Katherine Connolly    |    Jun 8, 2026

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — The CEO of Perrigo resigned Monday in a surprise move the Grand Rapids-headquartered healthcare company attributed to “personal conduct” issues.

Patrick Lockwood-Taylor resigned as president and CEO of the health and wellness company effective immediately Monday following allegations of misconduct, according to a release. The conduct was not directly related to Perrigo’s business, operations or financial reporting, the company said.

“This resignation follows a determination by the Board of Directors that certain personal conduct by Mr. Lockwood-Taylor was not consistent with the Company’s Code of Conduct and core values,” Perrigo said in a statement.

The company announced that Albert A. Manzone, who has served on the board since 2022, was appointed to fill the position while the board searches for a permanent replacement.

“Perrigo’s core values are foundational to how we operate, and the Board expects all colleagues — especially our senior leaders — to uphold those standards at all times,” Chair of Perrigo’s Board of Directors Orlando Ashford said in a statement. “The Board acted decisively and has full confidence in Albert, who brings more than 30 years of global leadership experience and a proven track record of transforming businesses at inflection points and creating value as well as deep knowledge of our business, people, and self-care platform.”

Lockwood-Taylor, the former president of international healthcare company Bayer’s U.S. arm, joined Perrigo as CEO in June 2023. According to Crain’s Grand Rapids Business, he signed a three-year contract extension in February 2025 that guaranteed him nearly $3 million per year in pay and a move to the company’s New Jersey offices.

Naomi Lopez is an adjunct scholar at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, senior fellow at the Goldwater Institute, Public Advisor at Paragon Health Institute, founder and principal of Nexus Policy Consulting and the author of The Free Market Remedy for Drug Pricing Ills: A Toolkit for State Lawmakers.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5812387-states-lead-pharmaceutical-reforms/

Washington is getting drug pricing wrong — here’s how states can get it right

Naomi Lopez     |     04/02/26

On drug pricing, few things are more dangerous than bipartisanship.

Democratic former President Joe Biden and Republican President Trump have both tried to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Yet Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and Trump’s Most Favored Nation scheme both amount to de facto price caps. They inevitably stifle the future medical breakthroughs that Americans need by preventing pharmaceutical makers from getting a return on their multi-billion dollar investments.

The Inflation Reduction Act alone has already shelved at least 55 medical research projects and led companies to abandon at least 26 new medicines, hurting patients for generations to come.

If our country is going to cure cancer or end heart disease, we need smarter policies that both lower costs and encourage innovation. If D.C. won’t deliver that vision, then states must embrace a new leadership role.

In a new paper for the Mackinac Center, I lay out a comprehensive pharmaceutical agenda that states should pursue as quickly as possible. This agenda is grounded in the proven principle of competition, which can both save patients money and spark new breakthroughs. All told, I recommend dozens of concrete policy actions that states can take — actions that are far more effective than anything coming out of Washington.

First and foremost, I show how states can lower the cost of prescription drugs without stifling the development of future medications.

The most effective thing states can do is allow seamless “pharmacy transfers.” Patients typically struggle to transfer their prescriptions to the pharmacy of their choice because of state laws and regulations, although some states allow greater flexibility during declared emergencies. Yet some pharmacies offer significant price savings. For instance, I identified an Asthma medication that many pharmacies offer for the list price of just under $100. But others offer it for under $10, and some mail-based pharmacies offer 30-day supplies for less than $1. By allowing seamless pharmacy transfers, states will let patients switch to more affordable options, putting pressure on competitors to lower their prices, too.

States can also save patients (and taxpayers) money by requiring more use of generic and biosimilar drugs. When these products enter the market, they are proven to lower drug prices by as much as 85 percent. Yet manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers often use legal tricks that keep patients on higher-priced drugs. States can ban these practices in state employee health plans and other taxpayer-supported programs so that patients can switch to more affordable generic drugs much sooner. They can also require pharmacists to substitute generic drugs for brand-name medications in these plans, unless expressly restricted by the prescribing medical provider, further lowering prices. Requiring price transparency for prescription drugs would further spark the competition that saves patients money.

But states shouldn’t stop at smarter efforts to lower costs. It is just as important — if not more so — to ensure America’s continued leadership in medical breakthroughs.

On that front, states should immediately outlaw the so-called “quality-adjusted life years” metric, where factors such as age, mobility and cognitive function measure the “value” of an individual’s life to determine coverage decisions. This is rationing and it discriminates against the sickest and oldest patients. They need the most medical help, but pharmaceutical companies may steer clear of developing innovative treatments for the most vulnerable populations if unelected, bureaucratic boards can decide that the treatments to improve or even save their lives just aren’t worth it.

Finally, states should immediately break the barriers that stand in the way of 21st century medical innovations. Recent advances in genomics, biomarkers and diagnostics have brought us to the cusp of therapies and treatments that are tailored to individual patients. But decades-old federal rules frequently bog down promising treatments in rules and red tape.

States can solve this problem by creating new pathways to get the right treatments to the right patients, and at the right time. Bottom line: 20th century thinking shouldn’t stifle 21st century progress.

These are just a few of the reforms that states can enact to lower costs, promote access and encourage medical breakthroughs. Unfortunately, Washington and many states are rushing in the opposite direction, supporting their own price controls and other restrictions that are touted to save money in the short run but kill medical progress and promising cures for those who need them most over the long haul. Competition — not government control — is the proven way to both save patients money and improve their lives.

Sadly, the bipartisan approaches we see in D.C. don’t achieve that. It’s time for states to show the way forward.

Refreshing commentary from the macro-economic side rarely expressed openly. Growers and manufacturers are assumed to be speaking from self-interest. Too often, whistle-blowers seem easy to dismiss as hysterical.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/03/20/the-truth-about-glyphosate-genuine-concerns-and-sobering-realities/

The Truth About Glyphosate: Genuine Concerns and Sobering Realities

Miles Pollard   |   March 20, 2026

The use of the agricultural input glyphosate may be one of the most hotly contested issues within public health right now. For some, glyphosate is proof that modern agriculture is poison. For others, it is an example of anti-science panic.

Both reactions avoid the hard truth: glyphosate is a critical agricultural input with contested cancer literature, collapsing public trust, and a set of policy tradeoffs that are too often ignored.

The large scale skepticism of glyphosate safety started in 2015 when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic (Group 2A), based on “limited” evidence in humans alongside animal and mechanistic evidence.

However, this legitimate concern is based more on potential theoretical hazards rather than an assessment of real-world exposure levels. Regulating agencies ask a different question: whether a substance poses an unacceptable risk when used as labeled.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency has maintained that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” However, it has since withdrawn its 2020 interim decision following U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit litigation and is now revisiting parts of its analysis.

Across the pond, the European Food Safety Authority said in 2023 that it found no “critical areas of concern,” and the European Commission renewed glyphosate’s approval through 2033. Similarly, the European Chemicals Agency concluded that the available evidence did not justify classifying glyphosate as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic.

As for the studies used to justify such decisions, one of the strongest prospective cohorts in the debate, the Agricultural Health Study. The study followed more than 54,000 licensed pesticide applicators in North Carolina and Iowa. An analysis from 2018 found no overall association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma but did report some evidence of increased acute myeloid leukemia risk in the highest exposure groups.

Later, a pooled AGRICOH analysis from 2019 covering more than 316,000 farmers and agricultural workers in France, Norway, and the U.S. similarly found no association, though it reported a borderline elevation for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma among long-term users of glyphosate.

When looking at meta-analyses, which are literature reviews of several studies to ascertain patterns, the data is still contested. In 2019, a meta-analysis of the Agricultural Health Study’s highest exposure cohort found a 41% increased relative risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

However, in 2020 another meta-analysis and its follow up in 2021 came to more restrained conclusions, cautioning readers about the literature’s publication bias but confirming that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma cannot be ruled out.

An honest summary of the literature neither exonerates nor condemns glyphosate. High exposure individuals, like farmers with specific lymphoma subtypes, are worth monitoring.

This scientific uncertainty should give policymakers pause. Glyphosate has become the most used pesticide (specifically as an herbicide) in the US, sprayed on over 100 crops.

U.S. glyphosate usage has risen from less than 5,000 to over 80,000 metric tons per year between 1987 and 2007. This more than 15-fold increase was accompanied by the deployment of glyphosate-tolerant crops and reduced tillage practices.

Most prevalent among these was Roundup by Monsanto, which was purchased by Bayer in 2018. Whatever one thinks of glyphosate and Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, banning such a prevalent pesticide may create regrettable substitutions.

In fact, Bayer actually stopped selling glyphosate-based Roundup for the U.S. residential market in 2023, citing ongoing litigation issues rather than safety concerns. As of February, 2026 the company has paid $11 billion for civil suits. Some Roundup formulations were replaced with diquat dibromide, which is banned in the EU due to its higher toxicity.

According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, glyphosate’s chronic intake threshold is 1 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day while the European Food Safety Administration sets their threshold at 0.5 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day.

Comparatively, diquat dibromide’s threshold is between .002 and .005 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 100-500 times lower than glyphosate. However, it is worth noting that actual formulations containing diquat may be substantially lower than glyphosate, mitigating some risk.

Evidence aside, the decision to restrict glyphosate usage also depends on safe, efficient, and effective alternatives. One important insight to consider is how glyphosate itself replaced more dangerous pesticides used prior to its introduction.

Agent Orange, the infamous defoliant used during the Vietnam War, contained one of glyphosate’s predecessors, 2,4,5-T. This compound was unfortunately contaminated with dioxin, a potent neurotoxin, due to inconsistent chemical treating. Dioxin’s threshold is .0000000007 milligram per kilogram of body weight per day, which is around a billion times more toxic than glyphosate.

This formulation has thankfully been banned since the mid-1980s, accompanying glyphosate’s rise in popularity. Glyphosate was detected in about 81% of Americans, with an average concentration of 0.000411 mg/liter of urine, which is thousands of times lower than the chronic intake threshold.

This is not to dismiss concerns over glyphosate toxicity, as many have raised questions about glyphosate’s effect on the gut microbiome. Others also have germane concerns about glyphosate mixed with other “enhancing” chemicals that increase toxicity.

Neither extreme should dominate the debate. Advocating for banning or restricting a well-used pesticide may lead to alternative pesticide regimes with more chemical alternatives, more over-applications, more tillage and soil erosion, or higher costs shifted onto families.

Glyphosate’s path forward demands nuanced, evidence-based policy including rigorous ongoing monitoring (especially for high-exposure populations), innovation in alternatives, transparent risk communication, and balanced regulation that takes these genuine concerns seriously and analyzes the realities of tradeoffs soberly.

The Makhteshim, Israel factory of ADAMA group was destroyed yesterday by fallout from a missile interception.  The destroyed facility made more than 120 active ingredients for agricultural crop protection and pharmaceuticals:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5805149-iran-war-pharmaceutical-supply-chain/

Pharmaceutical supply chains get tangled in war with Iran
By Joseph Choi - March 29, 2026

As President Trump’s war in Iran rages on, it’s posing a growing threat to the pharmaceutical supply chain and risks spiking the prices of many drugs, particularly those that depend on petrochemicals.

The war in Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have caused energy prices to jump and disrupted supply chains for a range of industries. While the Middle East is not a major pharmaceutical producer like China or India, there are still products that originate from the region, and many drugs rely on petrochemicals to be made.

“If the instability really persists, you’ll probably see lead times, transportation costs that can impact direct items that we need for our medicines, including the key starting materials into active pharmaceutical ingredients,” Gerren McHam, vice president of external affairs at the API Innovation Center, told The Hill.

The U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) issued a risk assessment report of the Middle East conflict, finding that the impact is currently limited. The region is responsible for only 0.3 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) production and 0.6 percent of oral solid dose production, with most of this concentrated in Jordan and Israel.

There are, however, a handful of drugs that those two countries have a significant hand in. Jordan produces about half of the world’s amoxicillin oral suspension and the same amount of API for etomidate, a fast-acting anesthetic. Seventy-three percent of API for flumazenil, a medication used to reverse the effects of benzodiazepines, is produced in Israel and Jordan.

Health care experts say there are alternative treatments for all these medications, and providers are well prepared to work around any potential shortages.

“There are therapeutic alternatives. We’ve actually weathered some drug shortages of those products in the recent past anyway, so we are familiar with some mitigation strategies if needed,” Michael Ganio, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, told The Hill.

Ganio noted that Israel is also the sole supplier of some drugs but added that these are “niche orphan drugs” and opined that the impact would still be limited if the conflict affected these medications.

Pharmaceutical production aside, the Strait of Hormuz is a critical trade route, and that has observers more concerned, especially if the conflict drags on for much longer.

“Much larger impact is disruption of airspace and waterway trade routes — tough to quantify but we know a high volume of ingredients from India need to go west to Europe for final manufacturing. Logically that supply chain is vulnerable,” the USP noted.

The organization highlighted the Red Sea, separated from the Strait of Hormuz on the western coast of Saudi Arabia, as being a much higher source of risk, as it sits along the same trade route that India uses to the transport large volumes of API and finished doses to the U.S. and Europe.

Houthi rebels in Yemen on Friday threatened to enter the war to support Iran. The group could likely shut down the Bab el-Mandeb Strait on the Red Sea, much as Iran has done with the Strait of Hormuz, throttling another key shipping corridor.

India is a major global producer of generic drugs, which make up the vast majority of prescriptions in the U.S. With margins for these medications already paper thin, the added pressure of higher energy costs and a more treacherous trade route could price producers out of the market.

Ganio called this potential pressure on generic drug imports “almost an indirect tariff.”

Petrochemicals, derived from oil, are a key starting material for most medications. If heightened energy prices continue far into the future, those cost increases are likely to be passed on to consumers.

A 2011 analysis of the pharmaceutical industry’s reliance on petroleum estimated that 99 percent of pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents are derived from petrochemicals, and there are relatively few substitutes for these materials.

As of Friday, the cost of crude oil has risen above $100 a barrel, with projections that it could go far higher if the war continues for weeks or months.

Petrochemicals aren’t directly going into the composition of drugs, but they are needed for production.

“Things that aren’t directly in the medications, but they’re needed in the chemical synthesis pathways,” Ganio said. “So, there may be some drugs that are based on a petrochemical, smaller hydrocarbons potentially.”

And as with almost all products, these chemicals need to be shipped around the world. Still, those familiar with the pharmaceutical supply chain aren’t alarmed yet.

“At the moment, in terms of the U.S., there’s no indication that the conflict is having anything directly impacting the supply chain, or availability of medicines,” McHam said.

“This is a reminder of how exposed we are with our pharmaceutical supply chain, specifically generics; especially those key materials that go into those medicines,” McHam added. “Because the real risk may not be today, but it raises a broader kind of bipartisan concern. The next event of disruption, if it’s more concentrated or is a critical part of our supply chain, what will happen?”

https://usrtk.org/healthwire/pharma-bribery-corrupts-health-care-puts-patients-at-risk/

• Bribery was often approved (or at least knowingly tolerated) by high-ranking managers.
• Intermediaries and complicated corporate structures obscured bribes, with subsidiaries, third-party vendors or shell companies disguising payments as legitimate transactions.

Among other harms, systemic bribery (including individual medical specialist payments not related to research) can distort prescribing patterns and reimbursement decisions, diverting resources toward higher-cost, lower quality or unnecessary drugs and treatments, which is damaging to patients both medically and economically, the researchers say.

“In the worst case, corruption kills.”

Bribes can also compromise regulations designed to ensure drug safety and efficacy, jeopardize clinical decision-making, and undermine trust in medical institutions and practitioners, the study’s authors say. Such impacts, they say, erode public confidence in medical institutions and can harm patient outcomes “when decisions are driven by financial incentives rather than medical need.”

The researchers say the scale of financial penalties underscores how improper practices can become institutionalized, while the wide range of concealment tactics highlights the complexity of detecting and prosecuting such misconduct.

Government officials, regulators, and health care providers were allegedly bribed through cash, gifts, luxury travel, and fraudulent research to gain market access, increase sales or influence prescribing, according to the study. Additional reported tactics, the authors say, included compensating officials under the guise of consulting or speaker fees, using charitable front groups, and making direct payments to inspectors or regulators.

“These findings underscore the systemic nature of bribery in the pharmaceutical sector and call for stronger oversight and accountability to protect public trust and equitable medicine access,” wrote Kohler and her co-authors.

“Bribery is not limited to one region; it was documented across a wide geographic spectrum. The repeated reliance on sham clinical studies, inflated distributor discounts, and disguised consulting contracts supports the idea that certain systemic weaknesses transcend national boundaries.”

The global scope of pharma bribery investigations

• In total, 19 companies and many of their subsidiaries were implicated, including allegations against publicly named firms, including: BioTest, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Teva, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, SciClone, Nordion, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk.
• Across the cases, the total timeframe of the investigations ran from 1994 to 2016. The longest, documented alleged scheme lasted 11 years, with the average persisting for nearly five years. Once uncovered, cases took more than four years on average to move from detection to prosecution.
• Alleged bribes amounted to at least $12.6 million, the review shows. Total financial sanctions reached more than $1.1 billion, including roughly $586 million in fines, $447 million in corporate disgorgement (repayment of profits linked to alleged misconduct) and roughly $77 million in prejudgment interest.
• The largest single sanction of more than $519 million for foreign bribery was imposed on Teva Pharmaceuticals in a 2016 deferred prosecution agreement to settle parallel civil allegations and criminal charges that it paid officials to win business in Russia, Ukraine, and Mexico. (Just two years earlier, a Chinese court fined GlaxoSmithKline nearly $500 million after finding its local subsidiary guilty of bribery.) “While the conduct that resulted in this investigation ended several years ago, it is both regrettable and unacceptable, and we are pleased to finally put this matter behind us,” said Teva’s Erez Vigodman in a 2016 statement. “Since becoming CEO, I have worked diligently to make our culture of compliance central to everything Teva does.”

The research review relied only on cases that advanced to official investigation and prosecution and were made public. Other incidents—for instance, those involving companies not listed on major exchanges or operating in countries with less rigorous enforcement—may never come to light, the authors say.

“The discrepancy between the small number of detected cases and the extensive use of sophisticated concealment methods suggests that the OECD Convention, while significant in principle, has had only a modest effect on curtailing opportunities for corruption,” they wrote.

Where and how bribes were allegedly paid

• Boosting profits without directly compromising drug quality, such as paying prescribers to favor certain approved drugs, potentially steering decisions away from cost-effective or optimal care.
• Bypassing regulatory scrutiny to boost the sale of falsified, substandard, adulterated or unapproved drugs, creating direct public health risks. In these cases, bribes were paid to inspectors, regulators or supply chain actors to ignore safety and manufacturing violations.
• Combining profit-driven motives with drug quality or misuse risks, such as off-label marketing or securing approvals without full review, which increase sales while exposing patients to unproven or dangerous uses. For instance, pharmaceutical sales teams, incentivized by bonuses, promoted drugs for uses not supported by evidence, or bribed officials to overlook inadequate clinical testing.

Common pharma bribery tactics, up and down the corporate ladder

Schemes targeted publicly and privately employed physicians, nurses, pharmacists, hospital administrators, government health staff, and others, the study reports. Customs officials, members of parliament, and employees of state-run procurement agencies were also implicated. In at least one instance, consultants from the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) were involved.

“Across cases, company employees at every level from frontline sales and distributor personnel to middle managers, local executives, and even high-ranking corporate officers were directly complicit in planning, executing, or approving bribery strategies. Senior managers authorized inflated payments or disguised expense claims,” Kohl and her colleagues wrote.

“At times, executives approved false documentation or misrepresented financial transactions in official records and audits, and lower-level sales representatives regularly funneled funds or gifts, meticulously tracking prescription volumes or purchase orders to justify continued bribes. Frequent internal warnings and compliance reviews, which spotlighted obvious red flags in accounting and documentation, were often ignored or treated as isolated incidents.”

In one case, Bristol-Myers Squibb’s joint venture in China reaped more than $11 million in profits from alleged misconduct that included faking invoices, receipts, and purchase orders to fund improper payments to health care providers in exchange for prescription sales, the SEC alleged. Without admitting or denying the findings, the company agreed in 2015 to pay more than $14 million to settle charges that it violated the FCPA’s internal controls and recordkeeping provisions.

Sponsorships, travel, gifts and entertainment

Pharmaceutical companies frequently paid for healthcare professionals to attend congresses, conferences, and educational events, the study reports. However, investigations found these payments were “often inflated or included lavish, non-work-related perks such as shopping trips, sightseeing tours, and family travel, leading to their classification as bribes,” the reviewers write. Some companies provided personal loans to doctors with no repayment expectation or transferred cash directly to their bank accounts.

Beyond travel-based incentives, alleged schemes featured weekend retreats to spas, bathhouses, and karaoke bars pitched as educational seminars or symposia. Luxury items such as cameras, jewelry, and expensive wine were provided alongside smaller perks like shopping vouchers and electronics, the review shows. “In such cases, sales teams meticulously tracked each health care professional’s prescription volume to ensure a return on investment,” the reviewers write.

Falsified or manipulated clinical studies and research

Some companies set up fraudulent or low-value clinical studies—sometimes labeled as “Phase IV,” “observational,” or “epidemiological” studies—to funnel money to health care professionals. Sales representatives also recruited physicians who prescribed certain drugs, paying them “study fees” or for “data collection,” though paperwork was “often incomplete or deliberately misleading,” according to the review.

Novartis Greece, for instance, used an epidemiological study to boost prescription drug sales, not for genuine research, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Employees made improper payments between 2009 and 2010 to health care providers, recognizing that many believed they were paid to prescribe, not provide clinical data, federal prosecutors said.

Consulting, speaker fees, and medical roundtables

Hiring health care providers or government officials under titles such as “consultants,” “speakers,” or “Key Opinion Leaders” was another common tactic, the researchers note. “Individuals were paid for little or no actual work while the expenditures were classified as ‘advisory services,’ ‘lecture fees,’ or ‘professional consulting,'” the reviewers write.

“We strongly caution company officials from averting their eyes from what they do not wish to see.”

For instance, Teva, a leading manufacturer of generic pharmaceutical products, engaged a senior Ukrainian government health official as the company’s “registration consultant” between 2011 and 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. It paid him a monthly fee and provided him with travel and benefits worth $200,000 to influence government approval of Teva products, including insulins and the multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone®. Teva and its wholly-owned subsidiary in Russia admitted paying bribes to the official as part of its 2016 deferred prosecution agreement.

Some companies held “medical roundtables” and paid healthcare providers honoraria, sometimes routing funds through third-party journals (labeled as advertising) that were then funneled to attendees or speakers. Because the events were billed as external meetings, they often bypassed internal compliance or due diligence controls.

“Like other ‘consultancy’ arrangements, these roundtable payments served as covert bribes that were recorded in corporate books as legitimate marketing or professional fees,” the researchers wrote.

Distributor discounts, credit notes, and margin manipulation

Some companies gave excessive discounts or credit notes to distributors, who used the surplus to bribe doctors or government officials, the reviewers write. These payments, used to boost prescriptions or secure contracts, were falsely recorded as marketing or margin expenses, which concealed the bribe payments.

In Brazil, Lilly’s subsidiary gave excessive distributor discounts, enabling markups that concealed bribes to government officials to purchase Lilly products, the SEC alleged. One distributor allegedly used $70,000 (6% of sales) to secure $1.2 million in purchases, and the Lilly Brazil sales and marketing manager who requested the discount allegedly aware of the arrangement, according to the SEC.

As part of a broader civil settlement to resolve reported FCPA violations between 1994 and 2009 related to its affiliates, Eli Lilly announced it agreed in 2012 to pay more than $29 million without admitting or denying the allegations. It also agreed to an independent review of its internal controls and FCPA compliance.

“Lilly requires our employees to act with integrity with all external parties and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations,” said Anne Nobles, Lilly’s chief ethics and compliance officer in a statement at the time. “Since ours is a business based on trust, we strive to conduct ourselves in an ethical way that is beyond reproach.”

Bribery of government officials

Pharmaceutical companies also have been accused of bribing public officials directly or through intermediaries to accelerate regulatory approvals, speed product registrations or secure government contracts, the review shows. Payments were hidden through inflated contract prices, forged consulting agreements, or manipulated marketing budgets.

For instance, Eli Lilly’s subsidiary in Russia was accused by the SEC of paying millions of dollars to offshore entities for alleged “marketing services” to drive drug sales among pharmaceutical distributors and government bodies. About $2 million went to an offshore entity belonging to a government official, while another $5.2 million went to entities owned by someone closely connected to an important member of Russia’s parliament, the SEC alleged. Though the company became aware of violations, the arrangements continued for years, federal investigators said.

The company reached a civil settlement with the SEC as part of the 2012 compliance agreement, without admitting or denying the allegations, and the SEC noted that improvements to its global anti-corruption compliance program since the initial complaint.

“When a parent company learns tell-tale signs of a bribery scheme involving a subsidiary, it must take immediate action to assure that the FCPA is not being violated,” said Antonia Chion, associate director in the SEC enforcement division at the time. “We strongly caution company officials from averting their eyes from what they do not wish to see.”

United Nations program kickbacks

Under the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program, later placed under Iraqi control, pharmaceutical companies were required to sell products to Iraq through an UN-supervised system intended to provide humanitarian relief. The review identified pharmaceutical companies that inflated contract prices and funneled the excess as disguised “agent commissions” to Iraqi ministries.

“These payments were falsely recorded as legitimate fees or marketing costs while the companies recovered the padded amounts from the UN escrow fund,” the authors wrote.

Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiaries and pharmaceutical agent was accused in 2011 by the SEC of allegedly paying more than $850,000 in kickbacks demanded by Iraqi ministries to receive contracts and disguising the illicit payments as legitimate commissions, according to the SEC complaint. J&J voluntarily disclosed some of the violations by its employees and conducted an internal investigation, according to the SEC.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, the company agreed to pay $70 million to settle the case and parallel criminal charges by the U.S. Department of Justice, including separate allegations of bribes to doctors in Greece, Poland, and Romania, the SEC reported.

“These findings underscore the systemic nature of bribery in the pharmaceutical sector.”

Novo Nordisk, a leading supplier of insulin at the time of the program, acknowledged responsibility for its agent paying roughly $1.4 million in improper payments to the former Iraqi government by inflating the price of contracts before submission to the United Nations for approval, then inaccurately recording them as “commissions.” The company agreed to pay a $9 million penalty in connection with the scheme as part of a deferred prosecution agreement, U.S. Department of Justice records show. It also settled related allegations with the SEC, without admission or denial.

Shell companies, pass-through vendors, and false invoicing

Other techniques were widely used by intermediaries to create fraudulent invoices for nonexistent services such as “advertising,” “storage,” “consulting” or “marketing,” the analysis found. “In some cases, vague descriptions such as ‘distribution freight’ were used to funnel funds to officials or doctors without raising immediate red flags,” the reviewers wrote.

Charitable or philanthropic fronts

Pharmaceutical companies also allegedly disguised bribes as charitable donations or contributions to philanthropic foundations connected to public officials. Internal emails and documentation explicitly referred to these payments as quid pro quo arrangements for regulatory approvals or favorable reimbursement decisions, the reviewers say.

For example, Eli Lilly’s subsidiary in Poland was accused of transferring $39,000 to a high-ranking health official’s small charitable foundation in return for the official’s support for placing Lilly drugs on the government reimbursement list, the SEC alleged in a 2012 complaint. The payments were falsely characterized for computer purchases and conferences, which never took place, according to the complaint.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, the company agreed to a final judgment permanently enjoining it from violating the FCPA as part of a wider settlement, SEC records show. It also agreed to pay more than $29 million in financial penalties and related payments.

Small penalties vs big profits

Foreign bribery by pharmaceutical companies persists, the researchers say, because the risk of detection is low, and the expected cost of being caught — the amount of a bribe and the risk of penalties from one — is often low relative to increased revenues. For example, Johnson & Johnson’s agreement to pay $70 million in financial penalties, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, occurred the same year it reported earning $65 billion in sales — and years after the SEC alleged bribery schemes by its subsidiaries in four countries began.

In 2023, the DOJ and SEC resolved 14 FCPA actions across all industries with total sanctions of approximately $571 million—a significant decrease from the prior year when 10 actions yielded more than $1.68 billion in corporate penalties, according to the most recent data compiled by the multinational law firm A&O Shearman in its annual report. As discounts for cooperation and compliance rose, the average penalty dropped to nearly $44 million in 2023, down from an average of $168 million in 2022 and a peak of $686 million in 2020.

“In short, pharmaceutical companies as rational profit maximizers (irrespective of legality) will compare the potential gains from bribery against the expected cost of being caught and punished,” the researchers wrote. “Lengthy delays between scheme initiation and their detection and prosecution, coupled with the potential to contest charges, reduce the effective expected cost of corrupt practices. As a result, high financial penalties do not necessarily translate into meaningful deterrence against corruption.”

The same calculation may be true domestically, suggests a research letter published earlier this month in JAMA Network Open. Researchers found that pharmaceutical manufacturers fined by the U.S. government for illegal kickbacks paid penalties equal to just 2.2% of their sales earned from selling drugs that were implicated in violations over the past 25 years. The total penalties were about $10.2 billion, while U.S. revenue during that same period totaled roughly $459 billion, they say.

Alleged schemes typically involved paying doctors to prescribe federally reimbursed drugs, the researchers say, and criminal prosecution under the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute was uncommon.

“Moreover, all cases were resolved through negotiated settlements, likely due to resource constraints and uncertainty of judicial judgment, which also makes settlement more predictable for manufacturers. Thus, our findings suggest that AKS settlements may be economically tolerable for some pharmaceutical manufacturers and function as a cost of doing business,” the new study concludes. The median time from alleged misconduct to settlement was 3.8 years.

Calls for broad structural reforms

• Expanding independent financing for clinical trials
• Improving transparency through data analytics, AI risk detection, and automated financial tracking
• Mandating disclosure of industry payments to healthcare providers
• Reducing regulators’ reliance on industry financing
• Strengthening whistleblower protections

https://www.michigandaily.com/news/former-michigan-medicine-dean-omitted-multimillion-dollar-pharma-ties-in-multiple-publications-daily-investigation-finds/

Former Michigan Medicine dean omitted multimillion-dollar pharma ties in multiple publications, Daily investigation finds
By Elizabeth Rozeboom, Anna McLean, and Elizabeth Foley - February 15, 2026

Over a decade marked by a pandemic and nationwide cuts to health care funding, Marschall S. Runge led Michigan Medicine in a historic triple-leadership position. He served as executive vice president of medical affairs and chief executive officer of Michigan Medicine starting in 2015. In 2016, he was appointed dean of the Medical School, serving in all three roles until 2025.

The University of Michigan credits Runge with doubling philanthropic funding and leading the University to its greatest growth in research advancement. In addition to his administrative roles, Runge conducted research of his own, which was largely centered on cardiovascular topics.

His University responsibilities made him one of the institution’s highest compensated faculty. In 2024, he was the second-highest paid U-M employee with a salary surpassing $2.38 million.

Runge was on another payroll, too.

In 2013, Runge was elected to the board of directors at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, where he served until August 2024. Though Lilly is a known producer of at least one cardiovascular drug, it is unclear whether the research Runge conducted is directly affiliated with the drugs Lilly manufactures.

Runge received at least $2 million from Lilly throughout his tenure as a board member according to Open Payments, a government database that discloses physicians’ external financial relationships.

It isn’t uncommon for doctors to receive compensation from drug and medical device companies for consulting for them. But, an investigation conducted by The Michigan Daily found the payments Runge received from Lilly far exceeded the amounts most of his peers at other hospitals accepted from similar companies, and that the level of outside compensation is not mirrored by Runge’s U-M leadership colleagues.

The Daily also found that Runge omitted his financial ties to Lilly in at least 12 of his journal publications. Two of these nondisclosures appeared in Redox Biology and Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, which are owned by Elsevier.

The Daily requested comment from Elsevier about whether the journal was aware of Runge’s conflicts of interest at the time of publication. In a Dec. 5, 2025 email response to The Daily, Elsevier Communications Director Rebecca Clear wrote the company upholds the highest standards of ethics in its publishing to protect the quality and integrity of research.

“In accordance with our commitment, this case is currently under investigation, and we cannot disclose further information until the investigation is complete,” Clear wrote.

In a Jan. 20 corrigendum to one of Runge’s articles, Elsevier noted Runge’s omission of his board of directors position at the time of the article’s original publication.

“The authors regret omitting to include that Marschall S. Runge was a member of the Board of Directors of Eli Lilly at the time of this publication and apologize for any inconvenience that resulted,” the corrigendum read.

Runge declined The Daily’s repeated requests for an interview. However, Runge provided a statement via Mary Masson, Michigan Medicine senior director of public relations, on Dec. 3, 2025. Runge stated that, during his time at the University, he adhered to all of its school-specific requirements.

“I followed every aspect of the University of Michigan conflict of interest (COI) policy. This included receiving approval from the President and the Board of Regents to join the Lilly Board and providing annual updates on any issues that could pose a conflict,” Runge wrote.

The Daily could not confirm whether Runge’s nondisclosures conflicted with University policies.

‘What’s the loyalty?’

In an interview with The Daily, Dr. Eric Campbell, research director at the University of Colorado Anschutz Center for Bioethics and Humanities, said that, while external financial relationships with drug and medical device manufacturing companies aren’t necessarily abnormal, they may pose liabilities.

“When you get to serve on these boards, you can make quite a bit of money,” Campbell said. “It could change the education. It could bias the research. And it also has the potential to leave the impression among the public, elected officials and even the employees that their leaders are essentially trading the reputation of the institution for their own personal benefit.”

While Open Payments data show Runge received more than $2 million from Lilly from 2018 to 2024, The Daily was unable to recover compensation numbers prior to 2018.

Each year, more than 95% of Runge’s received payments were categorized as “compensation for services other than consulting,” a category that includes speaking, training and participating in educational engagements unrelated to continuing medical education.

Runge also received compensation from Lilly in the form of stocks. In 2024, Lilly reported that Runge owned thousands of combined shares and stock units in the company. Based on Lilly’s current share price, they’re valued at more than $17 million.

An analysis by The Daily of the University Medical School’s executive and senior leadership found Runge’s colleagues at the University did not engage in similar financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

<Bar graph showing Runge making 229k in 2024 from external sources and the other Michigan Medicine leadership members making less than 125k per year.>

An analysis by The Daily also found that Runge receives the second-highest external compensation among the deans of several top medical schools.

<Chart displaying deans of Duke, Yale, and Michigan receiving over 220k a year in external compensation, with all other deans making 30k or less.>

In an interview with The Daily, Dr. Robert Steinbrook, Public Citizen Health Research Group director, said the allegiances of leaders who participate in external financial relationships may be called into question.

“A dean speaks on behalf of the institution, represents the institution and the question arises: ‘What’s the loyalty?’” Steinbrook said. “Is the loyalty to the institution, or is the loyalty to the outside organization, whether it’s a pharmaceutical company or somebody else?”

‘Disclosures: None.’

The industry standard for researchers who have financial ties is simple: disclose competing interests. Professionals far and wide caution authors of research publications to err on the side of disclosure, with top research institutions and journals maintaining this sentiment.

For conflict of interest disclosure policies, many peer-reviewed journals follow the standards outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In a page dedicated to disclosure best practices, ICMJE posits that, while external relationships do not always indicate problematic influence on paper, perceptions of conflict may erode trust in science.

“Public trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how transparently an author’s relationships and activities, directly or topically related to a work, are handled during the planning, implementation, writing, peer review, editing, and publication of scientific work,” the ICMJE page reads.

At least three of the journals in which Runge has been published explicitly utilize the ICMJE’s guidelines in their own conflict of interest disclosure policies.

The University has long stood as a pioneer of medical research and innovation, ranking 12th in global research reputation according to the U.S. News & World Report rankings. For U-M employees, the standards for disclosures are clearly defined by the Office of Research Ethics and Compliance: any actual or potential conflicts of interest must be reviewed, eliminated or managed.

Runge sat on Lilly’s board of directors for 11 years, advising its Ethics and Compliance and Science and Technology subcommittees. In that period, he authored 23 journal publications. In 12 of those papers, his financial ties to Lilly were omitted.

Beginning in 2022, Runge began uniformly disclosing his ties to Lilly.

<Pie chart showing that more than half of Runge's journal publications have no conflict of interest disclosure>

It is unclear whether Runge’s cardiovascular research is directly affiliated with the cardiovascular drug Lilly manufactures.

The Daily could not confirm whether Runge’s omission of his financial relationship with Lilly in these journals violated U-M-specific conflict of interest disclosure standards for researchers. When asked to provide the Michigan Medicine conflict of interest policy, Masson wrote in a Feb. 4 email to The Daily that it is not publicly accessible.

In publications where Runge disclosed his ties to Lilly, there was an explicit statement establishing Runge’s connection to the company.

In publications where Runge did not disclose his ties to Lilly, verbiage varied.

Campbell also maintains that industry leaders, like Runge, should be prudent when deciding whether to disclose their financial ties.

“I firmly believe that, as leaders, they are not naive to this field,” Campbell said. “They, more than anyone, should know the rules, and they, more than anyone, should be as conservative and as open in disclosure as they can be.”

Along with the ICMJE, all of the journals in which Runge is published had the same policy: Financial relationships must be disclosed.

The Daily requested comment from relevant journals, publishers and databases in which Runge’s work appeared: Elsevier (Redox Biology and JMCC), The Journal of Clinical Investigation, the American Heart Association, Mary Ann Liebert (Sage), National Institutes of Health and Ovid. Only Elsevier and JCI responded.

In a Jan. 23 email to The Daily, JCI Executive Editor Sarah Jackson wrote that, while she was not able to comment on a specific case, the journal relies on authors to identify any potential financial conflicts when they submit their manuscripts.

“It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to collect the list of all potential conflicts from each author and to communicate it to the editors with the submission,” Jackson wrote.

In addition to the article corrected by Elsevier, Runge omitted his financial ties to Lilly in at least one other Elsevier-owned journal publication.

Elsevier has issued no other corrigenda.

‘Above the rules.’

After the creation of Open Payments as part of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — which was codified in 2010 and requires manufacturers to report financial relationships with physicians and hospitals — high-ranking individuals and institutions began receiving criticism for not disclosing external financial conflicts of interest.

As a result, medical and academic institutions began implementing conflict of interest disclosure policies to mitigate any appearances of impropriety.

In 2012, the University followed suit, requiring researchers to follow the Public Health Service regulations outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. The policy requires institutions receiving NIH funding to maintain an up-to-date, enforced policy that manages, reduces or eliminates a researcher’s financial conflicts of interest.

In the statement provided by Runge, he wrote that he pioneered the rollout of the Michigan Medicine conflict of interest disclosure policies in compliance with national regulation.

“I abided by the COI policy and led the rollout of the policy to all of Michigan Medicine because I firmly believe it is essential to the honesty and integrity expectations of all faculty and staff,” Runge wrote.

It is unclear what the exact policy that Runge referenced contains, as Michigan Medicine’s conflict of interest policy is not publicly available. But, an anonymous 2025 report given to The Daily alleges Runge’s role in the policy carries a certain irony. The authors express concern that Runge’s external financial ties directly conflict with the standards expected of faculty.

Runge retired this past summer from his three roles as chief executive officer, dean and executive vice president, but still works as both the Frank D. and Agnes C. McKay professor in medicinal science, professor of internal medicine and the special adviser to the Michigan Medicine executive vice president for Medical Affairs.

In the wake of Runge’s departure, his former positions as executive chief officer, dean and executive vice president were divided into two separate leadership roles. Dr. David Miller now serves as the chief executive officer of Michigan Medicine and executive vice president for medical affairs, while the deanship is held by Dr. Thomas Wang. Neither Miller nor Wang serve on external corporate company boards.

In an interview with The Daily, a tenured Michigan Medicine professor said the decision to separate these leadership roles reflects internal tensions within the Michigan Medicine administration. The professor requested anonymity, citing fears of professional retaliation.

“One thing that’s being done right away is that the dean and CEO positions are once again being separated,” he said. “I think that that’s a reflection of the sense that too much power was concentrated in one person who didn’t exercise it well.”

The professor contended that Runge’s external financial relationship with Lilly failed to adhere to the ethos Runge himself expected of Michigan Medicine researchers.

“Here is an instance where it doesn’t appear that the same rules apply to the dean as to the general faculty, and the dean is far afield from the behavior of similar officers in peer institutions,” he said. “I think that negatively reflects on the institution, and within the institution, creates a sense that the leadership believes that they’re above the rules of the faculty.”

Correction 2/20: A previous version of this article incorrectly states that Elsevier, the AHA, Mary Ann Liebert, the NIH and Ovid are journals from which The Daily requested comment. Elsevier, the AHA and Mary Ann Liebert are publishers. Ovid is a database of publications. Further examination identified several more publishers that The Daily did not originally contact, linked below in data sources.

Correction 2/18: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Runge’s February 2019 and January 2017 publications originated from Science Direct, Elsevier’s online database of all of its journals. The publications originated from Elsevier-owned journals Redox Biology and Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology.

All data referenced in this story can be found here.

Focal Point Co-Managing Editor Anna McLean and Focal Point reporters Elizabeth Rozeboom and Elizabeth Foley can be reached at agmclean@umich.edu, elizaroz@umich.edu and elfoley@umich.edu.

<The graphics noted in italics can be seen at the original story, by clicking the leading hyperlink above.>

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/hims-hers-health-launches-copy-wegovy-pill-49-2026-02-05/

Exclusive: Hims offers cheapest GLP-1 weight-loss pill in US in a shock to Novo, Lilly
By Amina Niasse - February 5, 2026

• Hims and Hers Health will offer the drugs at a price $100 cheaper than the brand-name offerings
• Novo Nordisk shares fall to lowest level since 2021
• Novo says it is considering legal action

NEW YORK, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Online telehealth company Hims and Hers Health (HIMS.N) on Thursday began offering a much cheaper $49 compounded version of Novo Nordisk's (NOVOb.CO) new Wegovy weight-loss pill in a move that expands sales to many Americans but could undercut Novo's and Eli Lilly's (LLY.N) plans for the consumer market.

The news touched off a swift reaction on Wall Street as investors sold off Novo and Lilly shares, and the Danish drugmaker promised a legal challenge to the move by Hims. Novo shares fell 8.6%, while Lilly was off (LLY.N) 6%.

Hims' pricing, $49 for the first month and $99 afterwards for those who purchase a five-month plan, makes their GLP-1 drug as affordable as monthly internet or streaming services in the U.S. It can offer access to treatment for many more of the estimated 200 million Americans who are overweight or obese.

It is $100 less than Novo, which launched its pill in January at $149 for first-time users and $199 after that. Lilly is expected to launch its pill in April and has promised the Trump Administration affordable pricing including on its new TrumpRx site.

Hims' move came after Novo warned on Wednesday that pricing pressure was unprecedented for its weight-loss medicines and dropped its full-year forecast. Novo shares on Thursday hit their lowest level since July 2021.

NOVO SAYS ITS PILL IS UNIQUE

Novo CEO Mike Doustdar in a meeting with investors on Thursday said people spending $49 on a Hims' pill would be wasting their money and that Novo's pill uses unique technology that aids in the absorption of the medicine.

Novo spokeswoman Ambre James-Brown described Hims' mass compounding as illegal. "Novo Nordisk will take legal and regulatory action to protect patients, our intellectual property and the integrity of the U.S. gold-standard drug approval framework," she said.

A Hims spokesperson said it has not compromised on safety or efficacy and that the company uses a technology based on liposomes that is intended to support absorption.

Analysts questioned if customers would get similar results on the cheaper pill but said it could drive a price war if compounders can provide an oral drug in large quantities.

Hims has been tussling with Novo since it was allowed in 2023 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to sell versions of Novo's GLP-1 injectible drugs while the branded medicines were in short supply. Since then, it has made "personalized" copies of the branded drugs at different doses or regimens than those available from Novo and other drug companies.

These drugs are not FDA approved and are subject to limited agency oversight. They also do not go through clinical trials to prove efficacy. Novo's Wegovy pill showed weight loss of more than 16% in trials.

"The status quo for months now has been a compounder can create a copycat version of a branded drug, so long as they make some kind of minor tweak that they believe or they argue benefits specific patient groups," said TD Cowen analyst Michael Nedelcovych.

HIMS MAKES CASE FOR MORE CHOICE

Hims said the treatment can be tailored for patients aiming to mitigate side effects or who prefer a pill over the injectable option. Semaglutide is the main ingredient in the new Wegovy pill as well as injectable Wegovy and Ozempic.

"We're excited to find ways to continue bringing branded treatments to the platform across specialties. More choice on the platform is the best thing for customers everywhere," said Hims CEO Andrew Dudum in a statement.

Novo and Hims had a partnership in 2025 allowing the telehealth company to offer injectable Wegovy, but the two companies walked away with Novo saying Hims had wrongfully marketed versions of its medicine. Dudum accused Novo of attempting to control how clinicians at Hims make decisions.

By tailoring its offering for patients with side effects or an aversion to needles, Gaston Kroub, a patent lawyer in New York, said Hims is positioning the oral product as another personalized option, widening the scope of personalization under the FDA’s framework.

"HIMS has shown a willingness to go as close to the line as possible,” he said. “It’s a strategy of saying, ‘All right, if we pop our head over the barbed wire fence, is anybody going to take a shot?’”

Novo launched the drug in the beginning of January and has seen strong demand in the U.S., where it is available on its cash-pay direct-to-consumer website.

Novo Chief Financial Officer Karsten Munk Knudsen told Reuters on Wednesday that the drugmaker is frustrated by continued mass marketing of compounded drugs, and said it was up to the U.S. regulator and politicians to address this.

The FDA in September issued a warning to Hims regarding its marketing of compounded semaglutide, stating claims like "same active ingredient as Ozempic and Wegovy" are misleading, as compounded drugs are not FDA-approved.

LILLY PILL IS NEXT UP

In addition to U.S. pricing pressure, Novo is girding for competition from Eli Lilly on the oral weight-loss front as the Indianapolis-based drugmaker expects to launch its own pill in the second quarter.

Some analysts said Lilly's pill, an experimental GLP-1, could be a next target for compounded copies. Compounding, in which pharmacies mix ingredients for specialized medicines or to copy a drug but at different dosages, has flourished as Americans chase cheaper prices for drugs.

Hims declined to comment on the drug. Lilly did not have an immediate comment.

In 2025, Hims doubled the size of its facility in New Albany, Ohio. The company said on Thursday the expansion allows Hims to provide treatments at a lower price.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/drugmakers-raise-us-prices-350-medicines-despite-pressure-trump-2025-12-31/

Exclusive: Drugmakers raise US prices on 350 medicines despite pressure from Trump
By Michael Erman - December 31, 2025

• Number of hikes rises from same time a year ago
• Median list price increase is 4%, in line with 2025
• Includes 5 drugmakers who struck pricing deals with Trump administration

NEW YORK, Dec 31 (Reuters) - Drugmakers plan to raise U.S. prices on at least 350 branded medications including vaccines against COVID, RSV and shingles and blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance, even as the Trump administration pressures them for cuts, according to data provided exclusively by healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors.

The number of price increases for 2026 is up from the same point last year, when drugmakers unveiled plans for raises on more than 250 drugs. The median of this year's price hikes is around 4% - in line with 2025.

Keep up with the latest medical breakthroughs and healthcare trends with the Reuters Health Rounds newsletter. Sign up here.
The increases do not reflect any rebates to pharmacy benefit managers and other discounts.

DRUGMAKERS ALSO CUT SOME PRICES

Drugmakers also plan to cut the list prices on around nine drugs. That includes a more than 40% cut for Boehringer Ingelheim's diabetes drug Jardiance and three related treatments.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly (LLY.N), which sell Jardiance together, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the reason for the price cuts.

Jardiance is among the 10 drugs for which the U.S. government negotiated a lower price for the Medicare program for people aged 65 and older in 2026. Under those negotiations, Boehringer and Lilly slashed the Jardiance price by two-thirds.

U.S. patients currently pay by far the most for prescription medicines, often nearly three times more than in other developed nations, and Trump has been pressuring drugmakers to lower their prices to what patients pay in similarly wealthy nations.

The increases on 350 medicines come even as Trump has struck deals with 14 drugmakers on prices of some of their medicines for the government's Medicaid program for low-income Americans and for cash payers. Pfizer (PFE.N), Sanofi (SASY.PA), Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis (NOVN.S) and GSK (GSK.L) are among those companies and also plan to raise prices on some drugs on January 1.

"These deals are being announced as transformative when, in fact, they really just nibble around the margins in terms of what is really driving high prices for prescription drugs in the U.S.," said Dr. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

Rome said the companies seem to be maximizing prices while negotiating discounts behind the scenes with health and drug insurers and then setting yet another price for direct-to-consumer cash-pay sales.

An HHS spokesman declined to comment.

KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION

Pfizer announced the most list price hikes, on around 80 different drugs including cancer drug Ibrance, migraine pill Nurtec, and COVID treatment Paxlovid, as well as some administered in hospitals such as morphine and hydromorphone.

Most of Pfizer's increases are below 10%, except for a 15% hike of COVID vaccine Comirnaty, while some of its relatively inexpensive hospital drugs saw more than four-fold increases.

Pfizer said in a statement it had adjusted the average list price of its innovative medicines and vaccines for 2026 below the overall rate of inflation.

"The modest increase is necessary to support investments that allow us to continue to discover and deliver new medicines as well as address increased costs throughout our business," the company said.

Larger U.S. drug price increases were once far more common. Drugmakers have scaled them back due to criticism from lawmakers and new government policies, such as penalizing companies that charge Medicare program prices that rise faster than inflation.

European drugmaker GSK plans to increase prices on around 20 drugs and vaccines from 2% to 8.9%. The drugmaker said it is committed to reasonable prices and the hikes are needed to support scientific innovation.

Sanofi and Novartis did not respond to requests for comment.

More price hikes and cuts can be expected in early January, which is historically the biggest month for drugmakers to raise prices.
3 Axis is a consulting firm that works with pharmacist groups, health plans and some pharmaceutical industry-related groups on drug pricing and supply chain issues. It is a related entity to, and shares staff with, drug pricing non-profit 46brooklyn.

https://archive.is/ShRAb#selection-277.0-281.136

China’s Chokehold in Pharma: A ‘Nuclear’ Option in the Trade War?
In addition to rare-earth elements, China may use its near monopoly in some pharmaceuticals as artillery in its trade war with the West.

Commentary

China’s near monopoly on rare-earth elements has served Beijing well in its trade negotiations with Washington. That leverage has forced the Trump administration to make concessions on tariffs and, because it is effective, has elicited efforts from both the United States and the rest of the developed world to neutralize China’s dominance in the area.

What has attracted less media attention is China’s perhaps even more significant chokehold on global pharmaceutical supplies. So far, Beijing has kept quiet about this significant leverage, though the West got a taste when China cut off exports briefly during the COVID-19 pandemic. A still more significant cutoff could occur should push come to shove in the trade war.
Story continues below advertisement

China holds a commanding position in several areas of the world’s pharmaceutical supply chains, and generic drugs are part of it. At a recent Politico Europe Health Care Summit, Simon Goeller, chief transformation and growth officer at Sandoz, noted that nearly half of Europe’s generic medicines come from China and that his company’s plant in Kundl, Austria, is the last remaining fully integrated penicillin site in the Western world.

American specifics point up other vulnerabilities. According to a recent report from the Atlantic Council, 27 percent of the Pentagon’s drug procurement comes from China. The Council further notes that 92 percent of imported antibiotics—penicillin and streptomycin—come from China, as do 94 percent of imported first-aid kits.

Generics and first aid kits are only part of the story. China supplies fully one-third of the essential ingredients to all medicines produced anywhere in the world. It accounts for fully 40 percent of all American imports of these so-called active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs).

Of the 10 most critical U.S. imports, fully 99 percent come from China. Chinese production also accounts for 41 percent of the world’s supply of key strategic materials (KSMs) that are needed to produce active ingredients.

China has a still more complete monopoly on the so-called auxiliary chemicals and solvents needed to combine active ingredients into medicines. Indeed, China is the exclusive supplier of at least one key chemical used in nearly 700 crucial medicines. If anything, these impressive figures understate China’s role in this supply chain. Most generics and APIs purchased from Indian sources originate entirely or in part in China.

And this is not all. China also plays a dominant role in medicine licensing and clinical trials. In 2024, fully one-third of the world’s clinical trials were sourced in China. Some 45 percent of all new drug filings globally came out of China. In 2024, China-to-the-West licensing totaled $40 billion, up 66 percent from 2023. No data is yet available for 2025, but growth seems likely if not quite at the stupendous pace of 2024.

China has no special advantage that has allowed it to amass this dominant position. Back in the 1980s, China had none of this influence. Even as recently as 2000, it submitted barely 5 percent of the world’s filings. At that time, India outpaced it, submitting fully 19 percent of the world’s filings. China’s showing for 2024 (quoted in the above paragraph) far outpaced India’s.

Beijing built this pharmaceutical dominance deliberately. It offered Western producers a less expensive environment and one with fewer bureaucratic impediments than existed in the United States or in Europe. Production costs are estimated at 25 percent less than in the United States. Testing occurs at a faster pace than in the West and with fewer interruptions. Beijing has designated pharmaceuticals as “strategic” and has accordingly poured investment funds into the sector to lure Western producers by accommodating volume.

So far, Beijing has not even hinted at using this dominant pharmaceutical position as a bargaining tool in its trade negotiations with Washington or others. But its 2021 Biosecurity Law grants it all the authority needed to control pharmaceutical exports. Doubtless, Beijing has hesitated because humanitarian concerns would create a tremendous global pushback to the ensuing shortages that would occur. For the same reasons, no doubt, Beijing, when imposing rare-earth restrictions earlier this year, made exceptions for medical uses.
Story continues below advertisement

But as the United States and the rest of the world found out during the pandemic, if pressed enough, Beijing can halt exports, and to a powerful effect. Back in 2020, for instance, export controls stopped 80 percent of the world’s production of iodinated contrast media, forcing hospitals worldwide to ration diagnostic imaging for 10 months. Beijing may reserve such export controls as something akin to a “nuclear option” in war should matters turn heavily against it. Whatever the hesitations, Beijing clearly has the option at its disposal.

As with China’s rare-earth monopoly, Western powers are awakening to their vulnerabilities in the pharmaceutical sector. In a recent report to Congress, the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission pointed out these points of weakness, including how American companies have no obligation to report on the origin of their imports. The Commission pressed Congress to make such reporting mandatory.

The Commission also suggested that Washington put a floor under prices to prevent China from monopolizing and discouraging competition by flooding markets with products to drive down prices and destroy the profitability of any non-Chinese startup. This and other actions—similar to those the West is taking with rare-earth elements—are expensive and politically difficult in an era when affordability is such a sensitive matter, but they seem an unavoidable step in response to continued Chinese dominance in the global pharmaceutical industry.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/12/10/fda-head-makary-commits-to-releasing-robust-abortion-pill-review-as-soon-as-it-is-completed/

FDA Head Makary Commits To Releasing ‘Robust’ Abortion Pill Review As Soon As It Is Completed
By Jordan Boyd - December 10, 2025

U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary confirmed on Wednesday that his agency’s review of the drug responsible for a majority of the nation’s abortions is underway and will be publicized as soon as results are finalized.

As stories of women suffering injuries and even death after taking abortion pills without medical supervision gained traction, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged that the administration would “study the safety of mifepristone.” By March 2025, Makary also promised “to review the ongoing data.”

News of the review, however, remained sparse and vague for most of 2025, prompting Congress and pro-life organizations to pressure the FDA to roll back Biden-era expansions that make it easier for people to obtain mifepristone via mail or a drug store pharmacy without a doctor visit or medical oversight. Polling suggesting a majority of likely voters also want the FDA to protect women from the dangers of abortion pills, also made an appearance shortly after both Kennedy and Makary announced the FDA “is conducting its own review of the evidence.”

The FDA previously failed to respond to The Federalist’s questions about who is leading the review, what process the review will follow, whether it had formally commenced, and how long it is estimated to take. In his December 9 sitdown with the Daily Signal, however, Makary confirmed that the FDA’s mifepristone review is in the “data acquisition phase” and will continue “under my auspices.”

“It’ll be reported up to me,” he said,.

While Makary did not specify the review’s timeline or end date, he committed to publicizing the FDA’s findings as soon as they “are available.”

“We’re not going to decide what the results are before we’ve done the study,” he continued. “We’re doing the study the right way. And when you do the study the right way, and I’ve done dozens of these studies as a Johns Hopkins professor, you gotta do the studies in data the right way with the right pace.”

The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s April 2025 examination of private medical insurance data determined that more than one in 10 women who take mifepristone suffer a serious adverse event. This determined rate of life-threatening complications, such as hemorrhage and infection, after pill-induced abortion is at least 22 times higher than what the FDA and mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories boast.

The FDA’s study, Makary announced, is even “bigger” and “more robust” than EPPC’s undertaking. While the EPPC study was the “largest known study of the abortion pill” at the time, Makary said “it didn’t have granularity into the patient characteristics in a way that many researchers would want to have” which is why the FDA plans to probe mifepristone with an expanded review.

Makary’s comments come shortly after Bloomberg published an anonymously-sourced article claiming the FDA head was “Slow Walking a Long-Awaited Abortion Pill Safety Study.” Pro-life group SBA List Pro-Life America used the article to call for Makary’s firing.

No review is required for the FDA to reinstate some of the common-sense abortion pill safeguards. In fact, an embrace of requirements such as an in-person doctor visit would bring the second Trump administration’s FDA up to speed with the parameters that were present during the first Trump administration. Until that happens, it is easier now than ever for anyone to obtain mifepristone regardless of state laws prohibiting it.

The majority of abortions, 70 percent, are already believed to be unwanted, coerced, or inconsistent with the mother’s values and desires. A rise in abortion pill poisoning anecdotes further confirms that abusers and other bad actors take advantage of the FDA’s currently relaxed mail-order abortion drug provisions to force mifepristone on pregnant women.

The FDA recently added more mifepristone options to the market by approving a generic version of the abortion pill. The FDA claimed to The Federalist that the HHS secretary was required “by law” to “approve an application if it demonstrates that the generic drug is identical to the brand-name drug.” The off-brand abortion pill, however, went unapproved for 1,207 days under the Biden administration and 253 days under Trump before the FDA greenlit it.

Jordan Boyd is an award-winning staff writer at The Federalist and producer of “The Federalist Radio Hour.” Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.