Business

Biden administration threatens seizure of US-funded drug patents if prices too high on December 7, 2023 at 2:00 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

December 7, 2023

The Biden administration is rolling out a framework to enforce the government’s march-in authorities on drugs developed with taxpayer dollars, saying if drugmakers refuse to make their products “reasonably” available, then the government is prepared to give other companies license to produce those drugs at a lower cost.

Under the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, the government retains certain rights on any products produced through a public-private partnership using federal funding. This legislation allows federal agencies that provided the funding to compel companies that make such products to provide a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive” license to a “responsible applicant.”

If the company refuses to grant a license for its product, the government has the authority to grant the license itself.

These are referred to as march-in rights, as they allow the federal government to “march in” and issue a license for a product on its own.

While the government has had this authority for decades, it has never exercised this right. Shortly before leaving office, the Trump administration proposed a rule that would have narrowed the terms in which march-in rights could be used, preventing them from being exercised on the basis of “business decisions” related to the “pricing of commercial goods and services.”

Though the public comment period on this rule was allowed to continue in its entirety, the Biden administration ultimately did not finalize it. The Biden White House said it is now prepared to make use of this power for the first time.

“American taxpayers pay more for research than any country in the world: hundreds of billions of dollars on research relevant to developing new drugs through the [National Institutes of Health] and other agencies. But at the same time, pharmaceutical companies charge Americans two to three times — and sometimes even more than that — for the same drugs than what they can charge in other countries,” White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden said in a briefing.

The issue of high-priced, taxpayer-funded drugs has frequently been brought up, most recently when it came to the cost of COVID-19 vaccines. Throughout this year, lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) grumbled over the price hikes of coronavirus vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer, arguing the investment of taxpayer funds into these medicines was meant to promote public health and not corporate profits.

The departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Commerce will be releasing a proposed framework stipulating that the high costs of drugs developed with taxpayer funds will contribute to whether a medication is considered to be available on a “reasonable” basis.

The two agencies said in March they would be reviewing the federal government’s march-in authorities.

“Too often, patent and other laws have been misused to inhibit or delay for years and sometimes even decades competition for generic drugs and biosimilars, which overall denies Americans access to lower-cost drugs,” Tanden said.

White House national economic adviser Lael Brainard said: “We’ll make clear that when drug companies won’t sell taxpayer funded drugs at reasonable prices, we will be prepared to allow other companies to provide those drugs for less.”

The provisions in the Bayh–Dole Act act specify that a federal agency can issue its own license of a taxpayer-funded product if it’s determined that:

The current exclusive licensee has not or is not expected to make “practical application” of the invention

It’s necessary in order to “alleviate health or safety needs”

This action is needed to meet “requirements for public use” under federal regulations

And action is needed because the product is not being “manufactured substantially” in the U.S., a requirement of the Bayh–Dole Act that can be waived if a company shows that manufacturing in the U.S. is not “commercially feasible.”

Brainard said the administration is also taking up this authority in response not only to high drug prices, but also to promote competition in the industry.

“In the pharmaceutical industry, the four largest companies control almost half of all revenues, leading to less competition and higher prices for American consumers,” Brainard said.

When asked which drugs may be subject to march-in rights, senior administration officials declined to elaborate, saying this action is not about any specific medicine. Officials said the framework reflects the interagency thinking of several agencies, including HHS and the National Institutes of Health.

Ahead of the announcement, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spokesperson Megan Van Etten issued a statement responding to the proposed framework, saying, “This would be yet another loss for American patients who rely on public-private sector collaboration to advance new treatments and cures. The Administration is sending us back to a time when government research sat on a shelf, not benefitting anyone.”

PhRMA is one of several plaintiffs currently suing to stop Medicare price negotiation established through the Inflation Reduction Act, a measure that administration officials said this framework is building on.

The framework will be open to public comment for 60 days.

Along with this action, the administration also announced it will be launching a public inquiry into “corporate greed in health care” to stop anticompetitive mergers and practices. As such, the Justice Department, HHS and the Federal Trade Commission will be requesting information on how the control that private equity and corporations have on health care is impacting Americans.

Updated at 10:43 a.m. ET

Administration, Business, Health Care, News, Bayh-Dole Act, Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, drug costs, federal funding, Federal Trade Commission, Inflation Reduction Act, march-in rights, National Institutes of Health, pharmaceutical industry, prescription drug costs The Biden administration is rolling out a framework to enforce the government’s march-in authorities on drugs developed with taxpayer dollars, saying if drugmakers refuse to make their products “reasonably” available, then the government is prepared to give other companies license to produce those drugs at a lower cost. Under the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, the…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

3 days ago

July 11, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
Metals: Up 43%.
Leather products: Up 39%.
Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

5 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

5 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
The decline of Instagram and Twitter
Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.