The Hidden Costs of Importing Foreign Drug Price Controls Into Florida
Lowering the cost of drugs is a laudable objective, especially in Florida, which has 4.2 million seniors over the age of 65 and the largest percentage of such residents of any state. Florida policymakers are discussing ways to lower the cost of medicine and Floridians of all ages should be aware of a bill that would make matters much worse. HB 697 would increase the state’s control over the healthcare system by tying drug prices in Florida to those in other countries, where government-run, socialized medicine causes shortages, delays care, limits access, and provides fewer new drugs for serious and chronic conditions
Price controls on any industry or commodity have always increased costs and caused disruptions to the marketplace. HB 697 would use Most Favored Nation (MFN) imported pricing to effectively cap what insurers can reimburse and what pharmacies can charge, and if pharmacies or providers are unable to obtain a medication at or below that government-set price, which is often below market price, access to that treatment could disappear altogether for vulnerable Florida patients.
The impact of HB 697 goes beyond limiting or eliminating the availability of current drugs. When prices are artificially capped, drug manufacturers are forced to cut back on research and development, where the U.S. is the global leader in large part due to the price controls in other countries, leading to fewer new treatments and delayed market entry of existing medications. Recent research highlights just how real this risk is. An April 2025 No Patients Left Behind analysis showed that pricing models used by many foreign governments consistently undervalue the development of new medicines, leading drugmakers to invest less in innovation that kickstarts future breakthroughs. By adopting a similar approach, HB 697 would slow medical progress and undermine America’s leadership in biopharmaceutical innovation.
Price controls like MFN are draconian measures that increase the risk of drug shortages and rationing, harming the very patients they are ostensibly designed to help. Floridians, especially seniors on fixed incomes or those who rely on government-funded programs like Medicare and Medicaid, should not have to constantly worry about whether they can access or afford the medicines they need, or which disease will not be cured because it becomes unaffordable to conduct and complete new research and development.
Patients in Florida would feel these consequences more than in any other state. Many of today’s most innovative therapies that are designed to treat chronic conditions that disproportionately affect seniors would be delayed or potentially never reach patients at all.
An August 2022 University of Chicago issue brief found that price controls would increase healthcare spending by $50.8 billion over the next 20 years and lead to 135 fewer drugs, which will have a negative impact on 2.47 million patients. As noted in a December 18, 2021, blog post, price controls would lead to an “invisible graveyard of Americans.” And there is no doubt that Most Favored Nation price controls do not favor patients.
In President Trump’s first term, the Council of Economic Advisers’ February 2020 report found that American patients pay more for biopharmaceutical drugs due to free-riding and price controls by foreign countries and that reducing both would increase competition and lower drug prices for Americans.
Floridians deserve policies that lower their healthcare expenses without sacrificing innovation. Instead of embracing price controls through proposals like HB 697, Florida lawmakers should focus on a patient-first, market-driven solution to address the real drivers of rising healthcare costs and reject any efforts to import price controls and encourage the Trump administration to include drug pricing in its trade negotiations with other countries. Affordability is achievable without adopting destructive price controls from countries with socialized medicine and compromising innovation, patient choice, and access to care.
