Jäger: U.S. can’t win by copying Europe’s failures
In a compelling critique of European healthcare systems, Michael Jäger argues that the envy many Americans feel towards Europe’s approach to healthcare is misguided. Drawing from his extensive experience living under these systems, Jäger highlights the detrimental effects of government price controls on medicines, which, while intended to make healthcare more affordable, have led to significant drawbacks. He points out that these policies have resulted in fewer new treatments, delayed access to innovative drugs, and a notable decline in research investment across the continent. The UK, once a leader in biopharmaceutical innovation, exemplifies this decline, with major companies like AstraZeneca and Merck pulling back on significant investments due to unfavorable commercial conditions.
Jäger warns that if the United States adopts similar price control measures, such as the “Most Favored Nation” policy—which would tie U.S. drug prices to the artificially low prices set by European governments—it could have catastrophic consequences for pharmaceutical research and development. Citing independent analysis from the University of Chicago, he notes that such a shift could slash R&D investment by up to 60%, leading to hundreds of potential medicines never reaching patients. The Congressional Budget Office echoes these concerns, stating that price controls inevitably result in fewer cures. The implications for American patients would be dire, leading to longer wait times, diminished treatment options, and a loss of hope for new therapies.
Moreover, Jäger underscores the broader geopolitical ramifications of stifling innovation in the U.S. As Europe has retreated from biomedical innovation, countries like China are rapidly advancing, investing heavily in biotechnology as a strategic priority. With over 100 biotech research parks and significant market gains, China poses a growing threat in the global healthcare landscape. Jäger warns that reliance on China for essential drugs and vaccine components could become a strategic vulnerability for the U.S., especially in times of crisis. He concludes with a stark message for American policymakers: the choice between fostering innovation and implementing price controls is clear, and forgetting this lesson could leave the U.S. dependent on others for the very cures it once pioneered.
I often hear Americans say they envy Europe’s healthcare systems. As someone who has lived under those systems my entire life, I can tell you: envy is misplaced. Europe’s experience with government price controls on medicines should serve as a warning, not an inspiration.
Across Europe, governments dictate what companies can charge for medicines. It’s a policy rooted in good intentions, but has produced disastrous outcomes: fewer new treatments, slower access to new drugs, and a steep decline in research investment.
The United Kingdom, once a powerhouse of biopharmaceutical innovation, now finds its laboratories shuttered and investments fleeing abroad. AstraZeneca canceled a $600 million expansion. Merck scrapped a billion-dollar research hub in London. Sanofi has frozen substantial research and development investment until the “commercial environment” improves.
Why are the world’s leading biopharmaceutical innovators making their own Brexit?
When governments decide what a drug is “worth,” innovation withers, and over time, entire sectors of medical research migrate elsewhere. For decades, that “elsewhere” has been the United States, the primary market that still rewards discovery and risk-taking.
If America enacts “Most Favored Nation” price controls, tying U.S. drug prices to the artificially low levels set by European health ministries, it risks erasing that advantage overnight.
Independent analysis from the University of Chicago shows that such a move could cut pharmaceutical R&D investment by up to 60%, resulting in hundreds of medicines never reaching patients. America’s Congressional Budget Office has warned the same: price controls lead inevitably to fewer cures.
For patients, that means longer waits, fewer options and vanished hope. For the US, the consequences would extend even further.
Europe’s retreat from biomedical innovation did not occur in a vacuum, and neither would America’s. As the West throttles its science, China is racing ahead.
Beijing has declared biotechnology a “strategic emerging industry.” It now hosts more than 100 biotech research parks and 17 industrial clusters, and its firms have gained $300 billion in market value in just a few years.
In a future pandemic or biothreat, dependence on China for critical drugs and vaccine components would be more than an economic liability; it would be a strategic vulnerability. Innovation is just as much a moral imperative for patients as it is a pillar of national security.
Europe has lived this experiment, and the results are in: price controls shrink access, slow cures and surrender scientific leadership to nations willing to invest.
Europe’s lesson for American policymakers is simple: You can have innovation, or you can have price controls, but you cannot have both. If America forgets that, it will find itself asking others for the cures it once created.
Michael Jäger is the secretary general of the European Economic Senate/InsideSources
