by Rev. Gilbert Parker
I live every day managing numerous chronic conditions including gout, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure. Years ago, I was obese, and it took serious medical care, discipline, and access to effective treatments to turn my health around. Today, I rely on five prescription medications to keep these conditions under control. Without them, my quality of life and my future would be at risk.
Proposals in Washington to impose foreign price controls on prescription drugs through what’s known as the “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) policy is extremely concerning. While lowering drug costs is an important and worthwhile goal, importing price controls from other countries is the wrong way to do it. For patients who depend on consistent access to multiple medications, MFN threatens to do more harm than good.
Under MFN, the government would attach U.S. drug prices to what other countries pay—countries that often restrict access, delay new treatments, or ration care outright. That might look good on paper, but in practice, strict price controls can disrupt supply chains, discourage manufacturers from bringing medicines to market, and ultimately leave patients with fewer options. When managing chronic conditions that require daily treatment, “limited access” isn’t an inconvenience, it’s a crisis.
I’m not someone who takes a single medication once in a while. My health depends on a carefully balanced regimen that keeps my blood pressure stable, my cholesterol in check, and painful gout flares at bay. These medications have allowed me to stay active, productive, and out of the hospital. Any policy that threatens affordability or availability across the entire spectrum puts patients like me in an impossible position.
The reality is that America leads the world in medical innovation because we’ve embraced a market-based system that rewards research, development, and competition. When the government signals that it will cap prices based on foreign systems that undervalue innovation, companies respond by delaying launches, limiting supply, or shelving future research altogether.
We’ve seen this play out in countries with aggressive price controls. Patients in parts of Europe and Canada often wait years longer for new medications, if they gain access at all. That’s not a model we should copy.
I support reforms that increase competition, speed the approval of generics and biosimilars, and make medicines more affordable without sacrificing access. A market-based approach can lower costs while still ensuring that patients can get the treatments they need, when they need them.
I’ve worked hard to improve my health, and I depend on modern medicine to maintain it. Washington should reject MFN and pursue solutions that protect both affordability and access.
Rev. Parker is a former member of the North Carolina Human Rights Commission