Trade-related tensions between the United States and China have escalated dramatically in recent months. Despite a tentative agreement in May 2025 (extended in August 2025) to reduce the size of newly imposed tariffs on both sides, geopolitical frictions remain. Among other implications, these tensions threaten the cross-border trade of medicines. China has long been a major global supplier of generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients. In recent years, it has also emerged as an important player in new drug development — a field traditionally dominated by the United States and European countries. This shift has implications for global access to promising new medicines and presents challenges for U.S. regulators and policymakers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of resilient health systems that can manage and adapt to large-scale health crises. However, the relationship between resilience and health system performance remains unclear. While some view performance as a feature of resilience, others conflate the two. Excess mortality—defined as the difference between observed and expected deaths during a given period—is often used to assess resilience, but may introduce bias. In particular, countries with stronger pre-pandemic performance and lower baseline mortality may appear to have worse resilience simply because they had less “room” for mortality to rise under normal conditions.

More than 75% of cancer drugs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through expedited regulatory programs,(1) the use of which often leaves clinical uncertainties that may arise from issues related to trial design, conduct, analysis, or reporting—such as unvalidated end points, limited long-term data, or approval based on a single trial—about drug efficacy and safety.(2) Communicating these uncertainties is important, as clinicians may otherwise be unaware and overestimate a drug’s benefits and underestimate its risks.(3)

Although the FDA describes these uncertainties in detail in its benefit-risk assessments,(2) these documents are not widely read by clinicians. Instead, clinicians often rely on journal publications and guidelines. It is unclear whether clinical trial uncertainties about newly approved cancer drugs are reported in these sources.

Health systems globally face growing challenges, including ageing populations, increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, and limited resources to fund advances in health care. Emerging issues, such as climate change, infectious disease outbreaks, large-scale migration, and geopolitical instability, are placing additional strain on already burdened health systems. In Greece, many of these stressors have converged in the past 15 years, exposing structural vulnerabilities and testing health system resilience.(1–3)

Against this backdrop, Greece has implemented a series of reforms to improve service delivery and address public health challenges, but their long-term sustainability remains uncertain. The COVID-19 pandemic offered an illustrative example; the initial response was effective and driven by the prompt adoption of public health measures and interministerial coordination. However, as the pandemic progressed, persistent weaknesses and underdeveloped public health infrastructure exposed crucial vulnerabilities, ultimately undermining the health system's capacity to sustain an effective response.(4) Examining the Greek health system's adaptive capacity more broadly offers important insights for policy makers, in Greece and in other contexts facing comparable structural and fiscal constraints.

This Health Policy paper explores the key and emerging public health and health system challenges in Greece. The paper also provides an overview of recent reform efforts, identifying crucial gaps and opportunities for strengthening the health system to ensure its long-term sustainability.

People with schizophrenia are at heightened risk for physical multimorbidity and premature death. Semaglutide improves cardiometabolic outcomes, yet research is limited among individuals with schizophrenia. This study explored weight loss in Veterans with schizophrenia and physical multimorbidity (ie, heart failure and diabetes) prescribed semaglutide and compared weight changes to those in Veterans without schizophrenia. We hypothesized that those with schizophrenia would experience less weight loss compared to those without schizophrenia.

Competition between firms selling similar drugs is often fostered by policymakers as a means to curb pharmaceutical spending. While firms may compete within these specific drug markets, they also repeatedly encounter rival firms in different markets. This may shape competitive dynamics within and between markets. Yet, multimarket contacts, particularly relevant for multiproduct firms such as pharmaceutical companies, are often overlooked by pricing regulations. This paper investigates how multimarket contacts influence competition between pharmaceutical firms in off-patent markets. Using detailed product-level information on all retail pharmacy sales of generic statin drugs, we quantify the universe of multimarket contacts between firms in these off-patent markets, in Portugal, between 2015 and 2017. We then assess how multimarket contacts affect price competition. To do so, we explore the strict price regulation in Portuguese generic drug markets. Specifically, the Portuguese Internal Reference Pricing System (RPS) defines a price cap for each generic drug. Rather than examining absolute drug prices, we quantify the degree of price competition as the ratio between a firm's drug price and its regulatory price cap (price-to-cap ratio). We find that firms with more multimarket interactions set prices closer to price caps, consistent with the mutual forbearance hypothesis. This effect persists after controlling for brand status, lagged market share, and is not explained by common ownership. Our main results are consistent across alternative model specifications. However, due to limited within-firm variation over time, the effect is not significant in system generalized method of moment instrumental variable estimates. These results suggest that price caps may act as coordination anchors, thus lowering price competition between firms. Policymakers should consider targeted price cap adjustments as safeguards to preserve competition in off-patent drug markets.

Equitable access to essential medicines, which the World Health Organization (WHO) defines as those that meet the priority needs of the population,1 is key to achieving universal health care coverage.(2) However, it is estimated that essential medicines are unaffordable or unavailable to 1 in 4 people worldwide.(3) As governments strive to achieve universal access to essential medicines, it is important to understand how the prices and affordability of these medicines vary between countries. High drug prices strain both personal and government budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where patients often face high out-of-pocket costs.

Although many national surveys of medicine prices and affordability have been conducted, fewer analyses have compared these variables internationally, with most research dating back to 2011 or earlier.(4-20) Many of these studies have focused on high-income countries. Of the studies that also included low- and middle-income nations, most compared the prices of 15 or fewer medicines or included a small number of countries, limiting the generalizability of those findings. Therefore, little is known about the relationship between national income and drug prices. The question remains whether some poor countries routinely pay more than rich countries for the same prescription drugs, possibly owing to weaker pharmaceutical pricing policies.

This cross-sectional study used global data on pharmaceutical sales to compare the list prices of 549 essential medicines in 72 high-, middle-, and low-income markets (covering 87 countries) in 2022, both in nominal and purchasing power–adjusted terms. We also evaluated the affordability of 8 essential medicines used to treat major causes of death and disability globally.

On May 12, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to lower prescription drug costs by mandating that the US pay no more than prices in peer countries. The legality of implementing this so-called most favored nation (MFN) pricing through executive action is unclear. However, the idea of benchmarking US drug prices to prices in other countries is not new. The Trump administration unsuccessfully attempted a more limited MFN policy during its first term, and a 2019 bill passed by House Democrats used international prices as upper limits for Medicare price negotiations. Although lowering drug prices is a priority, achieving this by linking prices in the US to those in other countries is a misguided approach built on a misdiagnosis of the reason prices are higher in the US than in other countries.

The responses to our study on wealth and mortality in the United States and Europe raise important questions about causal inference, potential confounding, and the interpretation of cross-national differences. As noted by the correspondents, our findings reflect associations, not causal relationships. Although the patterns we observed were consistent across settings, more work is needed to disentangle the complex relationship between wealth and health.

Uncertainties about the benefits and harms of new drugs are common at the time of drugs’ approval. It is unclear to what extent the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communicates these uncertainties in the FDA-approved prescribing information (the drug label), which is the primary channel of communication between the FDA and physicians. Although physicians might not regularly consult the drug label for prescribing decisions, other information sources used by physicians either index or incorporate information from the label. We searched FDA review documents for uncertainties identified by FDA reviewers with new cancer drugs. We considered the subset of uncertainties highlighted in the FDA’s Benefit-Risk Framework as important to the FDA’s approval decision. During the period 2019–22, the FDA approved fifty-two new cancer drugs. In review documents, FDA reviewers identified a total of 213 clinical trial uncertainties with new cancer drugs, 50 percent of which were considered to be important uncertainties to the FDA’s approval decision. Labels for physicians reported information on 26 percent of all uncertainties and 48 percent of uncertainties that were important to the FDA’s approval decision. Communicating uncertainties about the evidence of drugs in the label is essential for informing physicians about drugs’ safe and effective use.

Scholars express concern that general practitioner shortages and specialist surpluses induce overspecialization, with overuse of costly specialist services and underuse of cost-effective primary care services. Yet few studies directly assess the relationship between physician supply and patient utilization. Given this gap, this paper examines the associations between physician supply, care utilization, and patient need and whether patients use more specialists in areas with lower primary care supply.

We appreciate the responses to our Article, which suggest that the health cost of paying for new pharmaceuticals in the National Health Service (NHS), estimated at £1·25 million quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost between 2000 and 2020, might be justified by the benefits of incentivising future innovation, attracting industry funding, or prioritising certain populations—we disagree.