MFN is Not Enough: A Structural Approach to Rebuilding Affordable Healthcare

A Value-Based Breakthrough: How Intra-Tumoral ClO₂ Therapy Aligns with U.S. Healthcare Cost Reform Goals

In July 31 2025, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping set of executive directives targeting America’s ballooning healthcare costs, with particular focus on prescription drug prices. His letter to the CEOs of major pharmaceutical companies contained four key demands:

1. Extend "most favored nation" (MFN) pricing to Medicaid reimbursements.

2. Mandate that all newly listed drugs adopt MFN pricing.

3. Repay overseas excess profits to American patients and taxpayers.

4. Open a direct procurement channel based on MFN pricing.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-sends-letters-17-pharmaceutical-companies-reducing-drug-prices

While this policy appears to restore price justice, a deeper analysis reveals that it selectively pressures pharmaceutical firms while leaving the rest of the U.S. medical cost structure untouched. Yet, paradoxically, this creates a window of opportunity for low-cost, high-impact alternatives like Intra-Tumoral Chlorine Dioxide (ClO₂) Therapy.

---

🔹 Is MFN Pricing Fair? Only Superficially.

The MFN policy is premised on this idea: if Germany, France, and Japan pay less for the same drug, the U.S. government should get the lowest price as well.

However, this overlooks fundamental differences:

• GDP and Currency Effects: U.S. dollar purchasing power is higher, making price parity unjust without GDP-adjusted benchmarks.

• Global Price Controls: European countries enforce centralized price negotiations and caps, which are not "market prices" but administrative limits.

• Innovation Subsidy: The U.S. has historically shouldered the lion's share of global pharmaceutical R&D by paying premium prices.

Policy Proposal: If MFN were adjusted by per capita GDP and purchasing power parity (PPP), it would be fairer and more economically consistent.

---

🏛️ Potential Impact on Federal Spending

If MFN pricing were fully enforced without loopholes:

· Estimated reduction in Medicare/Medicaid drug spending: 25–50%

· But hospital and physician costs would remain largely unaffected

· Total federal healthcare expenditure drop: only ~6–8%, due to the disproportionate role of service-based costs

In short, structural imbalance remains. The policy relieves one pressure point but leaves the rest of the system intact.