Back

The Impact of MFN on Oncology and Hematology Treatments

Bowen, H. P.; O'Loughlin, G.; Drake, C.; Schleicher, C.; Schulthess, D.

2026-02-20 health economics
10.64898/2026.02.19.26346624 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe Most Favored Nation (MFN) policy is a mechanism that incorporates foreign prices to determine the maximum allowable net price for any branded drug within US government-funded healthcare. Two proposed rules, the Global Benchmark for Efficient Drug Pricing ("GLOBE") (90 Fed. Reg. 60,244) for Medicare Part B and the Guarding US Medicare Against Rising Drug Costs ("GUARD") (90 Fed. Reg. 60,338) for Medicare Part D, invoke the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Centers payment and service model demonstration and waiver authority, under Section 1115A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. [§] 1315a), to calculate the US MFN price which is the lowest average price within a basket of specified foreign countries. Unlike voluntary manufacturer agreements, GLOBE and GUARD would mandate participation from all applicable manufacturers. MethodsWe derive MFNs potential impact on Medicare pricing from a proprietary dataset provided by IQVIA which contained net prices for the top 37 oncology products by total US sales from January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2025 ranked by total US sales in the following countries: Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the US. For each drug, we select the lowest GDP-adjusted international price from a basket of those countries within 60% of the US GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power parity, and calculate the reduction in US price required to match its MFN price, and hence the corresponding reduction in revenues under MFN. A retrospective Net Present Value (NPV) analysis is then used to address the counterfactual question of whether each drug would have been developed had MFN pricing been in place at the time of its FDA approval. ResultsUnder MFN, the average reduction in US prices across our drug cohort was 67%. Eighty-four percent of the 37 cancer drugs in our cohort evidenced a negative NPV if MFN had been in place at the time of their FDA approval and the commercial market is impacted. When the analysis is restricted to MFNs impact on Medicare, the indications for these lost drugs have a total US population of 2.4 million patients. When the analysis is combined across the Medicare and commercial markets, the loss of lead indications impacts over 15 million US patients. ConclusionsMandatory MFN policies reduce the financial incentives required to develop cancer medicines; our projections show a substantial decline in new cancer drug launches and will likely lead companies to pursue indications for populations outside Medicares authority. If so, MFN will reduce the number of new therapies for the very population the Executive Orders are allegedly designed to aid: the Medicare-aged population who require effective new therapies in areas of high unmet medical need, such as late-stage cancers. This creates the perverse outcome of a policy nominally designed to help Medicare beneficiaries by instead redirecting innovation away from their most urgent therapeutic needs.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 4%
26.3%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.4%
3
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
4
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
5
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
6
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
9
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
10
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
12
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
13
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.9%
14
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
17
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
18
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.4%
19
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
21
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
22
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
23
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
24
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
25
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.9%
26
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
28
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%