European central planners should stop trying to talk the US out of incentivizing the development of better medicines that then also help Europeans and the rest of the world. It’s one thing to argue that any one country can’t afford to pay more for new drugs. It’s another thing entirely to put new drugs in jeopardy for everybody by exporting that thinking to the one country whose market-based system has underpinned the last several decades of pharmaceutical advances.

It may surprise you to find out just how badly we’re failing to take a comprehensive approach to quantifying societal value from new innovations in medicine. The IRA’s investment in our climate future should be lauded; its treatment of medical innovation is unfortunately hobbled by its goal of lowering Medicare spending today at the expense of tomorrow’s patients – that is to say, all of us.

It’s long been assumed that as long as NICE-like cost-effectiveness analyses stay on the other side of the ocean, our US biotech ecosystem will be fine. But in recent years, toxic math has begun to make its way to US soil. Peter Kolchinsky sat down with Jayson Dallas to get his take on NICE’s tactics, their increasingly global reach, and how biopharma can fight back.

Traditional cost-effectiveness analyses done by organizations like ICER and NICE overlook much of the value of new drugs, including factors with crucial societal impact like genericization, risk reduction, and community spillover. Peer-reviewed research has made this clear again and again, but these organizations continue to insist on using outdated formulas to determine the value of drugs. With the passage of the IRA and imminent drug pricing “negotiations” (read: price controls), it’s more important than ever to get the math that values our medicines right.