Drug Price Hikes Hit 350 Medicines as Trump Deals Fall Short

Hundreds of list prices rise at the start of 2026

The White House spent much of 2025 announcing pricing agreements with drugmakers. Even so, the pharmaceutical industry began 2026 the way it begins most years, with a round of list-price increases. Data from healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors, provided exclusively to Reuters, showed manufacturers planning higher U.S. prices on at least 350 branded medicines. The list included vaccines for COVID, RSV and shingles, along with Pfizer's blockbuster cancer drug Ibrance.1411 At the same point a year earlier, companies had disclosed increases on just over 250 drugs, so the number of products affected grew by about 40%.210

The size of the typical increase stayed about the same. The median hike was roughly 4%, close to 2025.4 One market-focused outlet put the previous year's average at about 4.5%.18 The trend is clear: drugmakers are not raising prices more steeply, but they are raising prices on more products.

The increases were not universal. Companies also planned list-price cuts on about nine drugs. The largest was a reduction of more than 40% for Boehringer Ingelheim's diabetes drug Jardiance and three related products.6 The cut was not entirely voluntary. Jardiance is one of the 10 drugs whose Medicare prices the federal government negotiated for 2026, and that process cut its Medicare price by two-thirds.11

The companies that made deals also raised prices

The political tension comes from who is raising prices. The administration has reached agreements with 14 drugmakers covering some medicines sold through Medicaid and to cash-paying patients. Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and GSK all signed such deals, and all of them also planned increases on some products effective January 1.4 Pfizer was the first company to reach a pricing agreement with the White House. It also had the most increases, about 80 products.2

Pfizer's list covers several therapeutic areas. It includes Ibrance, the migraine pill Nurtec, the COVID antiviral Paxlovid, and hospital drugs such as morphine and hydromorphone.5 Most of the company's increases were below 10%. The exceptions were a 15% rise for the COVID vaccine Comirnaty and more than four-fold increases on some low-cost hospital products.6 Pfizer said the average list price of its innovative medicines and vaccines rose by less than inflation. It said the increases were needed to fund research and cover higher costs across its business.4

GSK planned increases of 2% to 8.9% on about 20 drugs and vaccines and said it remains committed to reasonable pricing.11 Sanofi and Novartis did not respond to requests for comment, and an HHS spokesman declined to comment.4

The best reading is that the White House agreements and the January increases can both hold. The deals target specific channels, mainly Medicaid and direct cash sales, and specific high-profile products. List-price decisions apply to entire portfolios. One analysis noted that companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb and Gilead agreed to most-favored-nation terms on selected drugs while still raising prices on dozens of other products.3

Cancer drugs show what is at stake

Ibrance appears in almost every account of the January increases, and oncology is where small percentage increases cost the most in dollars. Patients for Affordable Drugs, an advocacy group, counted price increases on 64 oncology drugs in the first week of January 2026.12 By its count, the increases ranged from $0.89 to $26,568, the median was 3.75%, and 73% exceeded inflation.12

The group listed several examples:

• Qinlock (Deciphera), used for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors: up $2,250 (5.07%) to $46,620
• Xpovio (Karyopharm), used for multiple myeloma and some lymphomas: up 5.9% to $34,722
• Mektovi (Pfizer), used for melanoma and lung cancer: up 6%
• Brukinsa (BeiGene), used for blood cancers: up 5.9%

12

The same report says cancer drugs cost about $74,000 more on average than non-cancer drugs, and that more than half of Americans with cancer take on debt to pay for care.12 It credits Medicare negotiation with cutting prices on several expensive cancer drugs by up to 60%. It also notes that the industry and its allies have filed 11 lawsuits against the program and are backing the EPIC Act, which would lengthen the negotiation timeline for small-molecule drugs.12 These figures come from an advocacy group with a clear position. They are still useful because they show how a median increase of about 4% plays out at the top of the price range.

A prescription-assistance service made a similar point. Single-digit increases on a widely used cancer therapy can add thousands of dollars a year for patients on long-term treatment.19 Auburn University public health historian Zachary Schulz said the type of drugs affected matters more than the count. In his view, vaccines and specialty cancer therapies affect both individual and population health, and patients with high-deductible plans or no insurance face the most exposure.17

Where coverage agrees and where it splits

Coverage agrees on the basic facts: at least 350 drugs, a median of about 4%, Pfizer with the most increases, and January as the industry's main month for price changes.71315 It also agrees on why increases are smaller than they used to be. Pressure from lawmakers and Medicare penalties for price increases above inflation have reduced the double-digit hikes that were common in the mid-2010s.514

The disagreement is about what the increases mean.

The deals are marginal. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital, said the White House agreements are presented as transformative but only nibble around the margins of what drives U.S. prices. He described companies maximizing list prices, negotiating private discounts with insurers, and then setting a separate cash price for direct-to-consumer sales.5 A legal analysis reached a similar conclusion, describing an emerging system in which insurers pay one price and consumers pay another.8

The increases are price-gouging. The Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, a coalition that often opposes the pharmaceutical industry, called the increases egregious. It noted that the 4% median exceeded the latest 2.7% inflation reading from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and blamed patent tactics for high prices.16 That comparison partly conflicts with Pfizer's claim that its increases were below inflation. The two statements measure different things, an industry-wide median versus one company's portfolio average, so both can be accurate.

Costs and shareholders explain the increases. David Williams of Health Business Group pointed to higher labor and materials costs and tariffs. He also argued that shareholders matter more to drugmakers than the president, and that companies expect to keep raising prices as long as they offer concessions on a few visible products.1

List prices are not what most payers pay. The Reuters data excludes rebates to pharmacy benefit managers and other discounts.4 Clinicians discussing the report online noted that net prices can fall even as list prices rise, and that January price changes happen every year. This is a fair caution, but it has limits. List prices still determine deductibles and coinsurance for many patients and the full bill for uninsured patients.17 One analysis argued that the PBM rebate system rewards higher list prices, because larger rebates can mean larger margins for intermediaries.3

Why the pressure has not changed the numbers

The Trump administration's strategy depends on most-favored-nation pricing, which ties some U.S. prices to the lowest prices paid in other wealthy countries. Americans often pay close to three times what patients in comparable nations pay.1711 Before many of the deals were announced, the president wrote to 17 drugmakers asking for lower prices within 60 days.18

The January data shows the limits of this approach. Voluntary, product-by-product agreements leave most of each company's portfolio untouched. Medicare negotiation, which has produced the steepest documented cuts, applies to only 10 drugs in 2026, with 15 more to follow in 2027.3 Meanwhile, manufacturers have moved from a few large increases to many smaller ones, a pattern that one assistance service links to Medicare's inflation penalties.19

The main conclusion is that political pressure has changed how drugmakers raise prices but not whether they raise them. Companies can make concessions on headline products and still take moderate increases across hundreds of others, including cancer drugs where a single percentage point can mean hundreds or thousands of dollars. Schulz put it this way: without broad price-setting authority or systemic reform, political pressure alone is unlikely to change pricing incentives.17 Unless that changes, patients will keep hearing that prices are falling while paying more at the pharmacy.