Posted on 10/05/2025 5:20:34 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
On September 30, 2025, the Trump administration announced that it had reached an agreement with Pfizer to lower its drug prices through a new direct-to-consumer platform. The administration presented the deal as part of a larger effort to prevent high US drug prices from being used to subsidize global innovation.
To better understand the Pfizer deal, we spoke with Dana Goldman, an NAM member and Founding Director of the University of Southern California Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy and Government Service. In the following interview, Goldman discusses how US drug prices are typically set, how the new agreement is likely to affect prices in the United States and Europe, and the need for more action to achieve greater price transparency and value for American consumers.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Goldman: There is no simple answer in drug pricing because the process is both highly regulated and lacking any transparency.
Uniquely in the United States, we maintain a patchwork of public and private programs and entities negotiating with drug companies. These include Medicaid, Medicare, Medicare Part D, the 340B Drug Pricing Program, and Veterans Health Administration plans—and I haven’t even gotten to the commercial health insurers, who cover 180 million people in this county. The bottom line is we have a milieu of drug coverage programs, each with their own regulations and approaches.
Every drug has a list price that sometimes get measured, but this is not what the insurers pay on the consumer’s behalf. The actual drug prices are often negotiated confidentially by Pharmacy Benefit Managers, or PBMs, on behalf of beneficiaries. It’s an opaque system, although some are becoming more transparent.
PBMs leverage the fact that they are negotiating on behalf of sometimes millions of beneficiaries. The government sometimes demands similar deals, but these are hidden behind a wall of rebates and combined across products. So, the list price of a drug, even though it often gets quoted or cited in research, sometimes actually bears no relation to what most people are paying. The net price for brand drugs after accounting for rebates can be 50 percent or more below the list price.
Consumers do benefit from these negotiated savings, even if they don’t see them. Rebates help lower insurance premiums for their drug coverage, but these premiums are often partially or fully paid by an employer or the government. The problem is there’s a lot of opacity on the part of PBMs about what the rebates are, as well as additional fees they charge, and how much is being returned to plan sponsors. Congress has been concerned about this for a while.
Goldman: The first thing to note is that Americans do quite well in the generic market. Generics represent 90 percent of prescribed drugs, and generics are cheaper in the United States than other countries. So, 90 percent of our prescription market (by volume) is operating effectively. When you hear the occasional story about very expensive generics, it’s ironically because the prices went too low, all the suppliers exited the market, and then someone got a monopoly and raised the prices.
Now, when you look at the brand market, there is research that suggests we’re paying a lot more than people in other countries. But remember, you have to be very careful not to compare the list price—you have to look at the net price: the price after rebates and other adjustments.
But even the net price is higher in the United States than Europe, so the administration is exactly right when it says the United States is subsidizing drug discovery throughout the world. The reality is that we buy maybe 20 percent of all the pharmaceuticals in the world, but we represent 75 percent of the profits. Most of the profits are off the backs of American consumers, which are paid through a combination of premiums and out-of-pocket costs. This is for on-brand drugs, which are around 10 percent of the drugs prescribed.
Goldman: Pharmaceutical innovation will go where there’s a likelihood of substantial profits. Take a new obesity drug, for example. Obesity is a disease that affects many Americans. And that has rationalized manufacturers to invest in decades of research to develop a product that has enormous benefits for US public health. Cancer is another good example. For a long time, the Medicare program paid higher prices in the Part B program, but these prices subsidized new treatments (to which we also tend to get first access).
Once a drug is developed, however, Europe will negotiate prices as low as they can without regard to the cost of innovation. In this sense, it’s true that other countries are “free riding” on the United States when it comes to drug discovery because they aren’t paying the higher prices that encourage drug companies to innovate.
Our research has shown that a dollar of revenue in the United States stimulates far more innovation than a dollar of revenue in the European Union. And that’s because the United States is a profitable market. Europe isn’t making as much profit, so Europe’s calculus is not entering into the R&D decisions that are made by these companies.
The one thing that is clear is that other countries, especially the Europeans, have been free riding off the United States for a long time. So, if we could get them to pay higher prices, that is unambiguously good policy for America.
Goldman: I think there’s going to be enormous pressure for manufacturers to raise prices overseas, and we’ve already seen that in the case of obesity drugs. The problem is a lot of the rebates are hidden even in those countries, and so international list prices doesn’t mean anything anywhere—except when people are buying on their own, direct to consumer. That’s the only time a price actually has a market signal, and I believe those prices will go up in European countries.
I expect direct-to-consumer prices will go down in America, but it’s a question of who gets access to those prices. Most people are going through Medicaid or Medicare or through their commercial insurance plan. Direct-to-consumer is not how most people get their drugs in the United States or anywhere in the world.
Goldman: If we were to just import the European prices to the United States and apply them across the board, it would be devastating to future drug development. Absolutely devastating. There’s a lot of research that has shown that, including my own.
We have tolerated high prices in the United States because we’ve developed effective therapies to address previously intractable disease. Cancer, obesity, even Alzheimer’s—we’re making progress on all of that now. It would be devastating to that progress to just import the prices from Europe.
But you’ll notice that a lot of the recent federal drug pricing efforts apply just to the 340B program. Or just to Medicaid. They’re not going to affect Part D and they’re not going to affect the commercial market. So, the total impact is unclear.
Goldman: My concern about the current policy environment is that there’s a very broad patchwork of regulatory policy and isolated interventions—like offering a website for consumers or doing something in the Medicare Part B program or negotiating lower prices on a few drugs. That tamps down a problem in one location but exacerbates irrational incentives in other locations.
In the case of the deal with Pfizer, we’re addressing one issue with one company in one market. If you think of the drug pricing ecosystem as a giant quilt of manufacturers and programs, we’re looking at one square on it and we’re only looking in the corner of that square.
I don’t think there is enough attention to the fundamental question that should matter for Americans: how should drug prices reflect the values held by Americans? And how can we make reimbursement decisions that get us closer to recognizing that value?
Most other countries have a health technology assessment process. Some countries do it well, and some just use it to renegotiate prices. America could lead here by saying, we need a system for figuring out the appropriate price for these drugs that takes into account American values; namely, that we want more innovation that is valuable to patients, including those with rare disease. I think there is a role for the National Institutes of Health or others to do a value assessment—not to tell drug companies what the price should be, but to generate estimates of what the value is.
GLP-1 drugs are the perfect example, because everyone believes they have tremendous value for weight loss and diabetes prevention, yet few are getting access to them through Medicare or commercial plans because insurers have no incentive to bear their upfront cost.
Commercial plans may look at someone who is obese at age 62 and say—that is Medicare’s problem in 5 years, so why should I invest in preventing diabetes?
But if we don’t cover them, we’re going to see only the more affluent getting access to them. Do we really want to live in a world where there’s a lot less diabetes among wealthy people but people who can’t afford medications end up getting diabetes and exacerbating already huge health disparities?
The other message is that we really need more transparency into what everyone is paying. This patchwork of hidden subsidies distorts behavior by patients, providers, and manufacturers—but especially PBMs. These intermediaries account for more than half of expenditures, but they are not the ones undertaking the risky R&D to bring new treatments to market. By passing sensible policy reforms, we can stop asking our sickest patients to bear the costs in hidden ways.
Oops. Rite Aid went out of business so with one less competitor all drug prices are going up.
Amazon Pharmacy. Nothing else. No insurance prices. Dirt cheap. Good quality pharmaceuticals. Good, responsible, professional service. Free shipping.
There’s a Rite Aid five minutes from my house with a drive in pharmacy.
Prices are pretty reasonable.
Start by trying to eliminate drugs where possible.
Soup has lots of water.
If you just eat soup, you probably can’t get fat.
Insurance shouldn’t pay for diet drugs.
From my profile page:
DRUG APPROVAL
Drugs approved by the European Union/Health Canada would be deemed eligible for import, sale and use in the USA six/eighteen months after such approval unless Congress acts otherwise.
NEW DRUG PLANS
Federal PPACA exchanges would offer Interstate Class Drug Plans,
exempt from state control, that to be fully federally subsidy eligible must cover at least:
1. 80% of all recombinant drugs by key active entity
(or 100% less the percentages held by the top three domestic rights holders by percentage),
2. 80% of all FDA breakthrough drugs by key active entity
(or 100% less the percentages held by the top three domestic rights holders by percentage),
3. 80% of all drugs covered by a key active entity patent
(or 100% less the percentages held by the top three domestic rights holders by percentage),
4. 90% of all WHO “essential” drugs
Any percentage shortfalls would result in twice the percentage reduction in the federal subsidy amount and must have the word ‘Substandard’ in the drug plan name to be at all federal subsidy eligible.
This system would allow for genuine negotiation between drug plans and drug companies. Drug plans would have an incentive to try to buy drugs from drug companies and drug companies would have an incentive to make deals to make sales.
Plan in-network drugs would be supplied at on an all-the doctors prescribe basis. The co-pays would be roughly equal to mere manufacturing cost.
Some plans might provide 30-day/one treatment purchase order vouchers for out-of-network drugs. Such plans might set purchase order voucher amounts based on known foreign pricing, type of drug [biologic, patented chemical], or by a plan specified amount by drug. Patients would have to try to get the purchase order voucher accepted at the pharmacy or online. Drug makers would have the right to refuse such vouchers, but few would probably do so.
The baseline federal drug subsidy would be the average policy holder age (as of the beginning of the policy period) divided by 3 taken as a percent of PPACA baseline subsidy amount for the PPACA household.
EXAMPLE A: For a PPACA household with a 34-year-old, a 36-year-old, and a two-year-old, the baseline federal drug subsidy would be 8% ((34+36+2)/(3*3))% of the PPACA household’s baseline subsidy amount.
EXAMPLE B: For a single PPACA policy of age 60, the baseline federal drug subsidy would be 20% (60/3)% of the PPACA household’s baseline subsidy amount.
With all the billions that Pfizer made from the Covid mRNA that was forced onto the world, Pfizer could probably give all of their other meds away for free for years and they would still be ahead financially. Genocide pays really well these days.
from my pre-Biden inflation health care cost coverage proposal years ago:
SEC. ???? MEDICAID DRUG PURCHASE PROVISION
(a) Any state may restrict its Medicaid program coverage drug products to those that cost the state Medicaid program no more than
(the lesser of their equivalent Canadian maximum price or), based on the most expensive drug molecular type of the product,
(1) generic chemical-,
(A) $20, 30-day supply,
(B) $50, 90-day/course supply,
(2) patented chemical-,
(A) other in chemical class or USP classification,
(I) $40/30-day supply,
(II) $100 90-day/course supply,
(B) no other in USP classification or chemical class,
(I) FDA-approved, FDA-designated breakthrough or orphan drug-,
(i) use normally < 91 days, $50/day of supply,
(ii) use normally < 1 year & > 90 days, $20/day of supply,
(iii) use normally >= 1 year, $200/30-day supply,
(II) FDA-approved, not an FDA-designated breakthrough or orphan drug-,
(i) $100/30-day supply,
(ii) $250 90-day/course supply,
(3) large volume recombinant-,
(A) normally one occasion use for any patient[clot-buster], $2,500/occasion,
(B) possible substitute for patient’s ICD-9 condition, $20/treatment activity day, up to 365,
(C) no possible substitute for patient’s ICD-9 condition, $40/treatment activity day, up to 365,
(4) small volume recombinant-,
(A) patient specific use only, $100/treatment activity day, up to 365.
(B) no possible substitute for patient’s ICD-9 condition, $80/treatment activity day, up to 365,
(C) possible substitute for patient’s ICD-9 condition, $60/treatment activity day, up to 365,
(D) normally one occasion use for any patient[anti-venom], $5,000/occasion.
also from the pre-Biden plan:
SEC. ???? EMPLOYER TAX CREDIT.
[President Trump has promised to improve health coverage and lower employer tax burdens.]
(a) Drug coverage shall be considered qualified for this section if it
(1) is PPACA conformant,
(2) is/includes a Medicare Part D copy plan,
(3) is/includes a Medicare Part D sourced plan,
(4) is/includes a plan offer/drug maker acceptance plan,
(5) cost(s) the employer as least $15 per week per employee, or
(6) covers, for any covered person, when lawfully & appropriately prescribed:
?(A) at least one FDA-approved auto-immune disease recombinant drug, if available at an employer/patient cost of under $20/$5 per day of treatment level activity,
?(B) at least one FDA-approved recombinant clot-busting drug, if available at an employer/patient cost of under $2,000/$500 per course of treatment,
*(C) at least two FDA-approved recombinant insulins, if available at an employer/patient cost of under $8/$2 per day per covered patient,
[this needs to rewritten based on insulin units]
(D) any FDA-approved recombinant periodic/intermittent use drug, not an insulin or auto-immune disease drug,
if available at an employer/patient cost of no more than $50/$10 per day of treatment level activity, in any multi-day treatment period,
(E) any FDA-approved non-recombinant FDA-designated orphan drug,
if available at an employer/patient cost of no more than $500/$100 for a 30-day (or shorter typical treatment length) supply,
(F) any FDA-approved non-recombinant FDA-designated breakthrough drug, under initial federal patent protection,
if available at an employer/patient cost of no more than $300/$50 for a 30-day (or shorter typical treatment length) supply,
(G) any FDA-approved non-recombinant drug, under initial US patent protection,
if available at an employer/patient cost of no more than $100/$20 for a 30-day (or shorter typical treatment length) supply,
(H) any FDA-approved non-recombinant drug, under initial US patent protection, if
if available at an employer/patient cost of no more than $200/$50 for a 30-day (or shorter typical treatment length) supply,
if no other was covered within 24 calendar days,
(I) any FDA-approved non-recombinant drug of the employer’s formulary,
if available at an employer/patient cost of no more than $50/$10 for a 30-day (or shorter typical treatment length) supply,
(J) any FDA-approved non-recombinant drug, no longer under initial US patent protection,
if available at an employer/patient cost of no more than $200/$50 for a 30-day (or shorter typical treatment length) supply,
if no other costing the employer more than $50 was covered within 84 calendar days.
also from my pre-Biden plan:
SEC. ???? PLAN OFFER/DRUG MAKER ACCEPTANCE PLANS.
(a) A plan offer/drug maker acceptance plan must be built by the following process, or a substantially equivalent process:
(1) The plan sponsor must decide on a drug-only plan drug_age_factor dollar multiplier between $5 and $9.
[If a dollar multiplier of $8 is chosen, a 64-year old would have a drug-only premium of $168.80/month (i.e. $8*21.1/month).]
(2) The plan sponsor must then draw up a proposed list of drugs and their apparent drug makers and list the percentage of premiums that will go to the makers of the drugs for an “all-the-doctors-prescribe” supply with the recommended drug co-pay above, or a drug plan set lower co-pay amount.
(3) The initial acceptance period must be open for at least 14 days.
(4) If accepted by the drug makers, the drugs will be locked into the plan formulary for the entire term of the plan (and its policies).
(5) The plan sponsor must then draw up another list of drugs and their apparent drug makers and list the percentage of premiums that will go to the maker each drug for an “all-the-doctors-prescribe” supply with the recommended drug co-pay above, or a drug plan set lower co-pay amount.
(6) The subsequent round acceptance period must be open for at least 14 days.
(7) If accepted, the subsequent round drugs will be locked into the plan formulary for the entire term of the plan (and its policies).
(8) Steps 5 through 7 may be repeated as often as desired by the plan sponsor, as may be possible.
(9) The premium amounts would be reduced by the total percentage unallocated and the participating drug maker percentages raised to equal 100%.
[If a dollar multiplier of $8 was chosen and 4% of possible premiums remained unallocated, a 64-year old would have a drug-only premium of $162.05/month.]
(b) Plan sponsors may set percentages to be split between two or more drugs based on their prescription volume (and other plan sponsor rules), subject to acceptance by more than one drug maker.
(c) reserved.
(d) No federal premium tax credit shall be issued for a person’s plan offer/drug maker acceptance plan unless, in a manner the Secretary of HHS shall specify,
(1) the plan was purchased by a care plan on the person’s behalf, or
(2) the person’s doctor/physician assistant/nurse practitioner or a registered nurse employed by the person’s state approved enrollment.
[Coverage under a plan offer/drug maker acceptance plan might be far less than of a Medicare Part D type plan.]
(e) Drug plans may offer locked-in access to [Part B cancer] drugs with percentage discounts earned by monthly premium payment off Federal Drug Marketplace level pricing, at the patient’s lowest contracted drug supplier-set multiplier, good for eight years from the start of the premium month.
(f) Discounted potential purchase rights to drugs in FDA trials may be included in monthly percentage discount programs, using up to 10% of the plan premiums.
[This is to allow drug developers to get income for a drug in development and for plan buyers to buy potential discounts for drugs in development.]
[If a plan buyer bought 24 months of 2% discounts and 12 months of 1.5% discounts, a $4,000/year Federal Drug Marketplace level priced drug would only cost the plan buyer $1,360/year upon FDA approval.]
(g) Drug makers and drug developers shall track all their monthly percentage discounts for each covered person [using taxpayer ID, name, address, date of birth information] associated with such policies.
[For example: If you had sixty premium months of 1% discounts and your drug would normally cost you $14/day, you would pay $5.60/day for the drug.]
(h) Plan sponsors to pay for drugs and drug discounts within 60 days of premium receipt or as otherwise agreed to.
(i) To be federal premium tax credit eligible, drug-only drug maker acceptance plans costing at least $5.40 times the person’s drug_age_factor must include some drugs of each of the following types:
FDA-designated breakthrough, orphan, recombinant and anti-neoplastic adding at least 60 days of life expectancy against at least one type of cancer.
(j) For plan offer/drug maker acceptance plans to be federal premium tax credit eligible, their co-pays must be less than:
(1) 50% of Federal Drug Marketplace levels on those drugs for FCC Lifeline eligible persons on such plans costing at least $5.40 times their drug_age_factor
(2) 40% of Federal Drug Marketplace levels on those drugs for FICA&SE tax price/FCC Lifeline eligible persons on such plans costing at least $6.30 times their drug_age_factor
(3) 30% of Federal Drug Marketplace levels on those drugs for FICA&SE tax price-covered persons on such plans costing at least $7.20 times their drug_age_factor
(4) 20% of Federal Drug Marketplace levels on those drugs for FICA&SE tax price-covered persons on such plans costing at least $8.10 times their drug_age_factor
(5) 50% of Federal Drug Marketplace levels on those drugs for income tax price-covered persons on such plans costing at least $8.10 times their drug_age_factor
[That’s to help lower-income people and to encourage people to buy more expensive plans with better coverage.]
[Since $5 multiplier plans may be independently built, the two provisions above can’t cause total drug plan tax credit lockout.]
also from my pre-Biden plan:
SEC. ???? FEDERAL DRUG MARKETPLACE.
[The Federal Drug Marketplace would be run by HHS with FDA help.]
[Drugs on offer via the Federal Drug Marketplace would be generally affordable to consumers and makers of premium drugs would get paid pretty much what the “market” buyers could afford to pay.]
[The Federal Drug Marketplace would be
[an exchange website menu financial payment calculator using postal service and federal tax system data, and
[provide a 6-digit alphanumeric code to registered exchange users, and
[provide federal tax system data for the registered exchange user to an exchange registered
[drug maker patient assistant program website that provided patient data and the code to the exchange website.
[The actual discounts would be provided voluntarily by drug maker participants.]
[Payment would be taken at drug maker websites or at dispensing pharmacies.]
[Depending on individual drug maker policy, drugs would be
[be sent to your doctor, or
[picked up at a pharmacy after showing your prescription and payment page (and that page has been confirmed by the pharmacist), or
[paid for and picked up at a pharmacy using your prescription and a special discount code.
(a) Any drug that is currently FDA-approved for sale to US patients may be listed on the Federal Drug Marketplace as the Secretary of HHS shall specify by
(1) the drug maker, or
(2) other entity that has national commercial volume US sales rights to the drug.
(b) Any implantable device that is currently FDA-approved for sale to US patients may be listed on the Federal Drug Marketplace as the Secretary of HHS shall specify by
(1) the implantable device maker, or
(2) other entity that has national commercial volume US sales rights to the implantable device.
(c) Listing would be until
(1) the start of the second calendar year after listing, or
(2) removal of FDA US marketing authorization for the product.
(d) Any Federal Drug Marketplace vendor may insist on
(1) a $20 per order minimum,
(2) delivery to a doctor or hospital in the US.
(e) A drug shall be considered a Class E [expensive] drug if it is
(1) an FDA-designated breakthrough drug,
(2) an FDA-designated “orphan” drug,
(3) a recombinant drug, or
(4) an anti-neoplastic drug adding at least 60 days of life expectancy for the average patient against an FDA-approved indicated type of cancer.
(f) A Class E drug may be offered on the Federal Drug Marketplace with a patient daily treatment cost of $2, plus one of the following:
(1) $0, if the patient is an FCC Lifeline eligible household member [total $2/day -> $720/year], or
(2) the higher of
(A) (a lister-set multiple less than 1)*(the patient’s latest IRS processed federal income tax 1040/1040A/1040EZ return “Tax”)/(100*(number of filers)), if such a return exists,
(B) (a lister-set multiple less than 1)*(2*FICA + self-employment tax payments going back three years)/1,000,
(C) $8, if the patient lives in a house, or
(D) $6, if the patient lives in another type of housing.
(g) reserved.
(h) A house shall be considered to be a detached dwelling or an attached housing unit with no housing unit above or below.
(i) The system shall assume that any zip+4 address with a unique numeric part of a street address is a house.
[Mr. & Mrs. Big Bucks: $10,000 annual federal income tax, multiplier=.8, two filers~ = $52/day of treatment activity -> ~$18,980/year]
[Mr. Joe Six-Pack: $30,000/year income, multiplier=.8, ~$14,000 3-year total 2*FICA&SE tax ~= $16/day of treatment activity -> ~$4,000/year]
[Mr. Robert Retired Houseowner: total $10/day -> $3,650/year]
[Bob Burgerflipper: total $8/day -> $2,920/year]
[Remember, that might be $2,920/year for a drug an employer might now pay $10,000/year for.]
[If an apartment dweller flips burgers for $17,000/year pre-tax, that $2,920/year may seem steep.]
[A patient quoted $18,980/year might pay $10,000/year locally or fly off to Canada or Europe.]
[Yes, market-like pricing can be unpleasant, but market pricing actually is the natural order of things without government meddling.]
[Limiting the number of drugs that may be sold at high pricing via a federal government portal is meant to prevent ignorant consumers from overpaying for drugs.]
[As you well know, there are lots of really stupid people in the USA.]
[People can still go to a corner drug store and overpay for drugs.]
(j) A drug product that does not contain treatment levels of a Class E drug may only be listed for sale
on the Federal Drug Marketplace at a price per day of treatment level activity of no more than
(1) a lister-set multiple less than 5, times
(2) a drug complexity price factor that is the sum of
(A) $1, plus,
(B) 30 cents per molecular ring in any key drug, up to 4 total per USP class, plus,
(C) 10 cents for each known atom in a drug molecule other than of carbon or hydrogen, up to 10 total per USP class, times
(3)
(A) .2, if the patient is an FCC Lifeline eligible household member, or
(B) the higher of
(I) 1,
(II) the patient’s tax return AGI from the penultimate calendar tax year divided by the multiple of $30,000 and the number of filers of that tax return.
(k) An FDA-approved implantable medical device may only be listed for sale
on the Federal Drug Marketplace at a patient cost of no more than
(1) a lister-set multiple not more than
(A) 10 for any electronic-driven/motorized device, or
(B) 2 for any other device, times
(2)
(A) $200, if the patient is an FCC Lifeline eligible household member, or
(B) $2,000, if the patient lives in a house, or
(C) $1,200, if the patient lives in another type of housing.
(l) For FDA-approved implantable medical devices, insulin and other recombinant drugs, the federal government shall pay a 100% match on ‘FCC Lifeline eligible’ household member price purchases, paid in full by patients, their relatives, insurers and domestic governmental entities, upon claims submitted as the Secretary of HHS shall specify.
“Moderna, Pfizer and BioNTech and Johnson & Johnson earned an approximate combined revenue of $31 billion in 2021, thanks to the success of their mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.”
RE: There’s a Rite Aid five minutes from my house with a drive in pharmacy.
Prices are pretty reasonable.
Rite Aid closes all remaining stores after 63 years in business.
By Auzinea Bacon -Oct 4, 2025
Well some one forgot to tell the one by me.
I was in there two days ago getting an inhaler for my wife.
When the ones near me went out of business a few months ago they had great clearance sales. It had to be what you wanted (like high cost supplements, sun block, odds and ends of seasonal items) but the good ones were 60 or 75% off while they lasted.
I’ve been interested in the Amazon Pharmacy and need to do some serious research.
Do they have physicians who can provide an Rx?
We’ve been waiting to hear that the price of Eliquis will drop, but so far we haven’t heard even a hint of that.
“Mr. President, as long as you will make our vaccines mandatory, then we have a deal”.
No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.