Trump Targets Health-Insurer Prices with Planned CEOs’ Summit as Drug-Cost Concessions Expand
White House signals a broader push to lower patient costs after securing price reductions from drugmakers amid looming ACA premium increases.
President Donald Trump announced Friday that he plans to convene a summit of health insurance chief executives to press them to lower prices, an effort he described as a continuation of his administration’s drive to curb biomedical costs after successfully pressuring drugmakers to reduce prices through a tariffs-based leverage strategy.
Trump said the meeting could be held in Florida or at the White House in the first week of 2026, and he claimed that the insurance executives “have to make less — a lot less.” He suggested one discussion could yield steep reductions—potentially 50%, 60% or 70%—though he did not detail the mechanisms he would use to compel the insurers to cut prices. The remarks came as the White House also highlighted a string of voluntary price concessions from nine more pharmaceutical companies at a White House event, bringing the total of firms agreeing to MFN, or most-favored-nations, pricing to 14 of the top 17 drugmakers.
The push toward insurers comes amid growing political pressure over affordability as about 22 million middle-class Americans who purchase coverage on ACA marketplaces face higher premiums following the expiration of pandemic-era subsidies that Democrats have sought to extend. Trump’s rhetoric frames the effort as a bid to “calm” public concerns over costs and to restore what he characterizes as reasonable healthcare pricing without dismantling coverage.
Trump tied his appeal to a broader narrative that the health-insurance industry has become disproportionately profitable, citing stock-price gains and arguing that “they’ve made a fortune.” He offered no specifics about how federal powers would be used to forge price reductions but asserted that the meeting would test whether the industry would act as “incredible, brilliant, responsible citizens.”
At the same event, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. urged reporters to give “World War III size headlines” to the administration’s decision by nine additional drugmakers to lower prices, following the tariff-threat-driven concessions. Officials said the latest round would push MFN pricing with a three-year tariff waiver in exchange for the companies aligning U.S. prices with those paid in other developed countries. The White House described the agreement as broad-based and aimed at reducing patient costs for a large swath of medications.
The 14 firms agreeing to MFN pricing include GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Genentech, Amgen and Gilead. Bristol Myers Squibb also committed to making its most-prescribed drug, Eliquis, available at no cost to Medicaid beneficiaries. Under the arrangements, companies will on-shore production while lowering prices for Medicare and Medicaid to align with international benchmarks. Officials said the MFN framework would extend to certain new drugs, with the goal of affecting roughly two-thirds of Americans who carry private health insurance.
The companies also pledged to publish discounts on a forthcoming TrumpRX website, set to launch in January, and to donate medications to U.S. strategic stockpiles. A final batch of major pharmaceutical firms is expected to make commitments at the White House next week, according to administration officials.
The White House has framed these moves as a way to address affordability with a direct, leverage-based approach—one that follows years of policy debates over how best to restrain drug prices and health-insurance costs. Supporters argue the MFN-style pricing could deliver broad relief to patients, while critics caution about unintended consequences for innovation and the broader pharmaceutical ecosystem.
The push comes as Republicans and Democrats battle over the fate of ACA subsidies and other affordability measures ahead of next year’s elections. Democrats have argued for extended subsidies to stabilize premiums and ensure more Americans maintain coverage, while Republicans have emphasized market-driven reforms and cost controls. Analysts have noted that while executive actions can prod industry concessions, lasting reform may require legislative changes to subsidies, pricing rules and pharmacy benefit management practices.
Officials emphasized that the plan remains subject to domestic political dynamics, regulatory review, and the companies’ own business considerations. The administration has indicated it will monitor the impact of price concessions on access to medications and on the broader health-care market as it proceeds with the proposed insurer summit and MFN pricing framework.
The administration’s approach signals a continuing gamble: using public pressure and selective concessions to push pricing downward while avoiding broader legislative hurdles. If insurers agree to the planned price reductions, the administration argues it could reduce out-of-pocket costs for millions of Americans and stabilize some of the premium volatility tied to policy subsidies. Critics, however, warn that MFN pricing could shift costs elsewhere in the system or damp incentives for innovation if not carefully balanced with other policy protections.
As the White House pursues these efforts, observers will be watching for how the industry responds, whether more firms join the MFN framework, and how Congress weighs potential subsidy extensions amid a polarized political environment. The patient-cost narrative remains a central line of inquiry in the broader debate over health care access, affordability, and the best path forward for American health policy.