MFN Poll Memo
Published
August 08, 2025
As policymakers consider new ways to lower prescription medicine costs, some are looking to foreign price controls—also known as “reference pricing”—as a potential solution. While this approach may seem straightforward, it would tie the price of medicines in the United States to decisions made by foreign governments with very different healthcare systems, in essence importing foreign policies to the U.S. system.
Experience shows that importing these policies risks undermining the innovation and patient access that have made the United States a global leader in life sciences. Before adopting models that have led to delays and limited access abroad, it is critical to understand what is truly at stake for American patients and the future of medical progress.
A recent national survey reveals a clear pattern: at first glance, this idea may sound appealing. But when participants learned more about what these policies actually mean for patients, support dropped sharply.
What Respondents Think—And What They Learn
When first asked, only about one-third of respondents (32.5%) said they agreed with the idea of MFN pricing. Nearly half (47.6%) were undecided, and a significant portion (20%) disagreed. This suggests that while the idea has some appeal, most respondents are either unsure or skeptical.
But the story changes as people learn more. For example, two out of three respondents (67%) were unaware that patients in countries with price controls often wait more than 500 days for new treatments. After learning about these delays and the fact that price controls can mean fewer life-saving medicines, concern rises sharply: 65% of respondents said they were concerned about price controls limiting access to treatments—only 8.4% said they were not concerned.
Fewer Medicines, Longer Waits
The survey also found that most respondents are not willing to accept the trade-offs that come with foreign price controls. When asked if they would accept lower access and longer wait times for life-saving medicines in exchange for price controls, only 26.4% agreed, while 42.2% disagreed. The rest were undecided.
Even more striking, only one in three respondents (32.5%) knew that foreign price controls can lead to significantly fewer new medicines being available. When told that such policies could reduce the number of new medicines by as much as 44%, concern grew: 64.3% said they were concerned about this outcome.
The impact on medical research is also significant. When informed that price controls could cut clinical trial research in areas like cancer and obesity by up to 75%, 65.5% of respondents expressed concern.
Support Drops as Respondents Learn More
Perhaps the most telling result: after learning about the consequences of foreign price controls—longer wait times, fewer medicines, and cuts to research—support for MFN pricing dropped by 10%. By the end of the survey, only 22.3% still supported the policy, while 44.4% opposed it.
Looking Ahead
Our national survey of 1,515 American adults, weighted to reflect the U.S. population on key demographics like age, race, household income, and political affiliation expect access, innovation, and timely care. When people learn about the real impact of foreign price controls, they become much less likely to support them. Instead of importing policies that limit access and slow innovation, Congress should focus on solutions that protect patients and encourage the development of new, life-saving treatments.
As the debate over lowering the cost of prescription medicines continues, it is essential to keep our focus on solutions that truly serve patients—both today and in the future. The United States has long led the world in medical innovation, delivering more new treatments and cures than any other country. Preserving this leadership means rejecting policies that import the shortcomings of foreign healthcare systems and instead embracing market-based approaches that reward innovation, protect patient access, and encourage investment in breakthrough therapies.
By working together to advance real reforms—enforcing fair trade, supporting research, and fostering global partnerships—we can ensure that Americans continue to benefit from timely access to life-saving medicines, while also driving the next generation of medical discoveries.
The path forward is clear: protect what works, improve what can be better, and always put patients first.
Chamber Major Initiative:
MFN Poll Memo
About the author
Brad Watts
Brad Watts is the Senior Vice President at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC). He works with U.S. Chamber members to foster a political, legal, and economic environment where innovators and creators can invest in the next big thing for the benefit of Americans and the world.
