The U.S. FDA’s expectations that its new default position of basing marketing authorization of novel drugs on one adequate, well-controlled trial may be overstated. In explaining the policy in a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary and CBER Director Vinay Prasad said they expect the initiative will create a “surge in drug development,” substantially reduce development costs and will speed drugs to market. While the initiative could reduce the time to the U.S. market, those expectations don’t take into consideration global norms and payer expectations.

While the annual State of the Union address has morphed over the years from a summation of the state of the U.S. government and the president’s legislative agenda into political theater on both sides of the aisle, President Donald Trump did include some recommendations to Congress in his Feb. 24 speech. Among those recommendations was a request for Congress to codify his most-favored-nation pricing policy for prescription drugs.

In handing a win to Regenxbio Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also cleared some leaves from the 101 patent eligibility threshold after years of Supreme Court decisions cluttering the passageway.

The ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Feb. 20 that shot down President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are rippling across the world. And Trump’s immediate response to that ruling – a proclamation imposing a temporary 10% import duty on most goods brought into the country beginning Feb. 24 – isn’t helping.

Driven by prescription drug prices and oft-repeated claims that nearly every drug developed in the U.S. owes its origins to taxpayer-funded research, watchdog groups and some lawmakers have led demands over the years for price to be considered a “reasonableness” factor in determining whether the government can march in on patents under the Bayh-Dole Act.