The U.S. pharmaceutical landscape is undergoing a period of accelerated change, shaped by federal efforts to lower drug prices, strengthen domestic supply chains, and find a workable balance between affordability and innovation. These shifts bring both pressure and opportunity for companies trying to navigate a more complex and policy-driven environment.

Central to this transformation is the proposed “most-favored-nation” (MFN) pricing model, which would tie U.S. prices for select high-cost drugs to those paid in other affluent countries. Supporters argue this approach could ease financial burdens on American patients and bring long-overdue discipline to the system. While the potential cost savings are appealing, the impact on research and development is less clear. Many in the industry worry that capping U.S. drug prices in line with international benchmarks could stifle investment, especially in high-risk areas like oncology, rare diseases, and advanced biologics.

That concern isn’t unfounded—high drug prices have, in part, fueled the U.S.’s position as a global leader in medical innovation. Many of the world’s most groundbreaking advances—from cancer therapies to gene-editing breakthroughs—were developed in America, often supported by publicly funded research. So American taxpayers are funding the foundational science (via NIH, DARPA, BARDA, etc.), subsidizing private-sector R&D in many cases, and yet still end up paying some of the highest market prices for the final product. This paradox is what’s pushing policymakers to reconsider the historical approach in favor of the MFN model.

One specific advantage of the MFN model is not just to lower drug prices in the U.S., but to encourage higher prices abroad—helping redistribute the financial burden of innovation and move the global market toward greater price transparency. While MFN could disrupt the carefully negotiated pricing structures in other countries, it’s important to recognize that those nations have been able to drive hard bargains in part because American patients and taxpayers have historically shouldered much of the cost of pharmaceutical R&D.

In addition to this proposed MFN model, the government is also pushing to reshore pharmaceutical manufacturing. The pandemic highlighted just how fragile the global drug supply chain has become, with critical shortages disrupting everything from generic medications to protective equipment. In response, federal programs are offering incentives for companies to expand domestic production. Major players like Moderna and Pfizer have already announced new facilities, particularly focused on biologics and vaccine production.

Still, this shift won’t happen overnight. Building out infrastructure, training a specialized workforce, and managing compliance come at a cost—one that could be particularly steep for smaller manufacturers. Higher U.S. labor and regulatory expenses may also offset some of the price savings these policies aim to deliver.

Another concern emerging alongside these reforms is the strain on federal regulators. Agencies like the FDA are being asked to do more with existing resources—reviewing new manufacturing applications, overseeing expanded production, and accelerating approvals. If not carefully managed, this added workload could lead to delays in drug approvals, especially for emerging therapies that already face tight development timelines.

Enter FDA PreCheck—a recent game-changer. Launched in August 2025, this new FDA initiative is designed to speed up onshoring of drug manufacturing through a streamlined, two-phased pathway. The Facility Readiness Phase enables frequent and early communication with the FDA during facility design, construction, and pre-production, using Type V Drug Master Files (DMFs) to share comprehensive site and quality system details. The Application Submission Phase then fast-tracks Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) reviews via pre-application meetings and front-loaded feedback, reducing uncertainty and accelerating review timelines. By offering greater predictability and regulatory support, FDA PreCheck may help manufacturers—especially smaller ones—navigate compliance and scale domestically, potentially easing the manufacturing cost burden and reinforcing supply chain resilience.

Despite these concerns, there are signs of promise. Domestic production may lead to greater transparency in pricing and stronger quality oversight. And as more players enter the U.S. manufacturing space—often with public-private support—there’s a chance this policy shift could spur competition and innovation, rather than hinder it.

For pharmaceutical companies, this marks an era that demands flexibility. Firms will need to rethink pricing models, reconfigure supply chains, and ensure their evidence strategies are prepared for a more value-conscious environment. Meanwhile, regulators, providers, and payers must work to anticipate how these shifts will affect access, equity, and sustainability. Researchers and HEOR professionals have a particularly critical role to play, not just in monitoring the downstream effects of these policies, but in helping to guide their evolution.

Two questions are still open—Will MFN pricing lower costs without hurting innovation? Can reshoring, supported by PreCheck, meet supply needs without raising barriers?—but the consequences will be real and lasting.

One thing is certain: a “wait-and-see” strategy is no longer an option. For industry leaders, policymakers, and health economists alike, the ability to adapt will define who leads in the next phase of U.S. healthcare.

‍