US shoulders disproportionate cost of new medications, report finds ⁠52%

By Edward Lawrence⁠87%

6/23/2026, 5:26:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 743 faulty-reasoning hits from 522 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (10,711 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.10% of the article peer group.

New research by the Office of Health Policy shows the U.S. shoulders a disproportionate cost when it comes to paying for prescription medication. 
The report, obtained by FOX Business, shows Americans account for nearly 80% of the innovative revenue for drugs launched between 2020 and 2025. 
The report also shows that no other country comes close to the United States' contribution to shouldering the cost of research and development. 
The next-closest country paying the cost for R&D in that timeframe is Japan, which accounts for about 5.5% of innovative revenues for new medications coming online and roughly 5.8% of innovative revenues for all medications. 
The U.S. trade representative’s office opened a new Section 301 investigation into Germany’s plan to reduce spending on pharmaceutical products on June 18. 
Germany accounts for nearly 3.4% of revenue for innovative medications from 2020 to 2025. 
The result of the investigation could allow President Donald Trump to make good on threats to add 100% tariffs on imports of pharmaceutical medications from Germany or tariffs on other imported goods from the country. 
MERCK, SANOFI ARE LATEST COMPANIES TO ADD MEDICATIONS TO TRUMPRX 
"I am particularly concerned with news that Germany is fast-tracking legislation that would further reduce its spending on innovative pharmaceuticals," U.S. 
Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. 
"This is a serious step backwards at a time when our trading partners need to step up and start paying their fair share to fund innovative pharmaceutical research and development." 
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB ADDING 3 MEDICATIONS ON TRUMPRX 
The USTR is taking public comment on the investigation through Aug. 
10. 
A public hearing related to the investigation will be held on Sept. 
22. 
Johnson & Johnson CEO Joaquin Duato told FOX Business Network's "Mornings with Maria" this month that "We agree with the government that we have to make other countries pay their fair share, especially Europe. 
And at the same time, we have to work in the middleman. 
The middleman captures about 50% of the value of the medicine, and we want that value to go directly to the patient to reduce their out-of-pocket costs. 
So in those areas, the government is always going to find us, Johnson & Johnson, working with them." 
Trump said in a Truth Social post earlier this month that, "Most Favored Nations would not be possible without my use of TARIFFS, which are getting other Countries to ‘pay up’ instead of relying on American Patients getting ripped off, as they were for decades until I ordered an immediate ‘stop’ to this very unfair and, frankly, foolish situation." 
RISING HEALTHCARE COSTS, INSURANCE PREMIUMS NOW WORRY AMERICANS MORE THAN ANY OTHER DOMESTIC ISSUE: POLL 
Seventeen of the largest pharmaceutical companies signed deals for Most Favored Nations status for some medications. 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
This new report from the Office of Health Policy could be used as a basis of proof that validates the concerns of the Trump administration that the costs Americans have been paying for medications are disproportionally high compared with the rest of the developed world. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.7%Edward Lawrence: 7.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias7.7%This article: 6.7%Edward Lawrence: 3.3%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.1%Edward Lawrence: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.1%This article: 3.4%Edward Lawrence: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 7.6%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.5%Edward Lawrence: 19.4%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect20.5%This article: 2.3%Edward Lawrence: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion2.3%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 5.9%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.2%Edward Lawrence: 7.4%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias23.2%This article: 3.4%Edward Lawrence: 4.0%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.2%Edward Lawrence: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.2%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.5%Edward Lawrence: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias1.5%This article: 1.9%Edward Lawrence: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.5%Edward Lawrence: 5.8%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 6.7%Edward Lawrence: 2.4%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.9%Edward Lawrence: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 7.5%Edward Lawrence: 5.7%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 7.7%Edward Lawrence: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question7.7%This article: 3.4%Edward Lawrence: 6.2%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.4%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.3%Edward Lawrence: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal2.3%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Edward Lawrence: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 5.9%Edward Lawrence: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 10.2%Edward Lawrence: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Edward Lawrence: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Edward Lawrence: 8.6%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.7%This article: 4.6%Edward Lawrence: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.6%

522 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers32%attributed speech357writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. trade representative’s office • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJamieson Greer • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJamieson Greer • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageU.S. trade representative’s office • 11 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. trade representative’s office • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJoaquin Duato • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJoaquin Duato • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJoaquin Duato • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJoaquin Duato • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words11% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.