US is the best place for drug companies to invest, says boss of London-based GSK

UK's GSK Boss Says US Remains Top Destination for Pharmaceutical Companies' Investment

The CEO of London-based pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, Emma Walmsley, has asserted that the United States remains the ideal location for companies to invest in the pharmaceutical sector. The remarks come as the UK government seeks to strengthen its industry and navigate ongoing challenges in the global market.

Walmsley pointed out that the US leads the world in terms of launches of new drugs and vaccines, and alongside China, it is the most promising market for business development opportunities. This assertion echoes those made by Pascal Soriot, CEO of AstraZeneca, who recently highlighted the "vital importance" of the US market.

The UK government has been pushing to reduce the proportion of revenues that pharmaceutical companies must return to the National Health Service (NHS) as part of a revenue clawback mechanism. The rate is currently set at 22.5%, but it will decrease next year to under 15%. However, negotiations on the revised rate broke down in late August, prompting several major companies, including AstraZeneca and US-based MSD/Merck, to pause or cancel large UK investments.

The government has also requested that the NHS spend an additional 25% more on new medicines as part of a zero-tariff deal with the US administration. The proposed agreement is aimed at reducing costs for pharmaceutical companies while providing better access to innovative treatments for patients.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump has criticized other rich countries for not contributing enough to the global effort to fund life-saving medications. High drug prices in the US are partly due to a complex system of intermediaries, which contributes to the country's high costs compared to other nations.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will soon raise its price threshold for determining whether new medicines are deemed cost-effective. The Department of Health has also proposed giving ministers limited authority to set this threshold, further emphasizing the government's commitment to making Britain a more competitive player in the pharmaceutical sector.

Industry experts caution that while some progress has been made, there is still much work to be done to bring UK payment rates closer to those in other countries. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) estimates that spending on medicines will increase by around £1 billion over the next three years, raising concerns about potential cuts to funding for healthcare staff and equipment.

Walmsley's statement suggests that GSK remains committed to expanding its presence in the US market, where it generates half of its revenues. The company has recently outlined plans to invest $30 billion (£23 billion) in the US by 2030.

I'm not sure if the UK is doing enough to attract big pharma investment... I mean, Emma Walmsley's statement sounds great on paper, but what about the elephant in the room? The NHS clawback mechanism can be a major roadblock for companies looking to invest in the UK. And let's be real, the US market is still super competitive - GSK already makes half its revenue there!

It's also kinda weird that the government is pushing for lower clawback rates, but then wants NHS hospitals to spend more on new medicines without a corresponding increase in funding. Sounds like they're trying to make the system work for both companies and patients, but it's not always easy. I'm not saying it's all bad, but I think there's still some hard work to be done before the UK can really compete with the US on investment and innovation fronts.

US is still the top spot for pharma companies to invest and they're getting that from GSK boss . UK's trying to reduce NHS clawback but it's not happening . Trump is complaining about high drug prices, but I guess that's a whole thing . NICE is raising its price threshold tho . GSK's still all in on US market and planning to invest big . UK needs to catch up with other countries or else NHS meds gettin expensive . Not sure how they're gonna make it happen tho

I think its time for the UK to rethink this whole revenue clawback mechanism theyre basically taxing themselves and limiting their own growth potential meanwhile the US is open arms for investment like whats the point of being a major player if youre not gonna get any return on that investment? also why are they making it so hard for companies to bring new meds to market its like, come on guys make some changes

So I think the thing with the UK and pharmaceutical companies is pretty interesting...
I mean, these big pharma companies like GSK are saying that the US is still where it's at for investment, but what's going on? Is it just because of all those new drug launches and vaccines, or is there something else at play?
I think part of the issue is how the NHS is handling these revenue clawback mechanisms. It's all about finding a balance between making sure companies aren't taking advantage of the system and giving patients access to affordable meds.
But then you have countries like China that are seeing some growth in their markets, and it's like, what's the UK doing to stay competitive?
And with all these changes happening in the US, from Trump to the new deal with the NHS, it's like everything is being turned on its head.
The thing I find a bit worrying is how industry experts are saying that there's still a lot of work to be done. It's not just about adjusting prices or making deals; it's about fundamentally changing how things work in this whole pharmaceutical system.
For example, what if the NHS starts setting its own price thresholds? Will that make companies like GSK take notice and start investing more?
The thing is, I don't have all the answers, but one thing is for sure: it's going to be a wild ride while these things are figuring themselves out...

so i think walmsley's comments are kinda interesting... i mean on one hand, the us is def a major market for pharma companies, but on the other hand, the whole thing with trump and high drug prices is pretty messy . like, i get that we need to make uk payment rates more competitive, but what about the NHS? do we really wanna sacrifice patient access to meds just to attract big pharma investments?

just think about this - uk pharma giant is actually saying us is still the best place to put your money ... meanwhile our government is trying to reduce the clawback rate but it's still super high ... anyways, gsk boss is also saying they're gonna invest a ton of cash in the us by 2030 that's some serious $$ ... wonder if this means we'll actually get access to more affordable meds soon

I feel like GSK boss Emma Walmsley is spot on about the US being the top destination for pharma investment . It's crazy how innovative meds are getting launched there, and it's no wonder companies wanna be a part of that action . I get why the UK gov's trying to make the industry more competitive, but the numbers just aren't adding up yet . I mean, £1 billion in spending on meds over 3 yrs sounds like a drop in the ocean compared to what they're earning in the States . But hey, progress is progress, right? And if it means patients get access to more life-saving meds sooner, then that's a win-win

You know when you're tryin' to get ahead but someone else's path seems easier? Like GSK's Emma Walmsley sayin' the US is the top destination for pharma companies? It makes sense, right? The US has a big market and new drug launches are like, whoa! But what I'm thinkin' is, is it really just about the benjamins or is there more to it?

I mean, we gotta look at the bigger picture. What if our priorities shift? We're not just tryin' to stay competitive, we're tryin' to make a difference. Like, what if we invested in new meds for diseases that affect people here at home instead of just goin' after the US market?

It's like, we gotta think about what really matters. Is it just about makin' money or is it about servin' people? I don't know, maybe I'm just bein' idealistic , but if we can make a difference and help people at the same time, that's somethin' to strive for. We might not get all the benjamins, but we'll feel good about ourselves .

And let's not forget, change takes time . It's like, we gotta be patient and work towards a better future instead of just tryin' to catch up with someone else.

I'm not sure how I feel about Emma Walmsley saying the US is still the top destination for pharmaceutical companies' investment... I mean, it's true that the US has a huge market and leads the world in new drug launches, but at what cost? The whole system seems pretty broken with those high costs and all the intermediaries involved. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should be copying the US model or anything , but it's hard to deny that there's something fishy about how it works.

I do think our government needs to keep pushing for better deals with the NHS and other partners, though. It's all about finding a balance between making the industry more competitive and not sacrificing patient access to life-saving meds. We can't have it both ways , but I guess that's what negotiations are for!

The US is still a hot spot for pharmaceutical companies but I think we should be looking at other markets too . I mean, China is growing rapidly and there's definitely potential for growth there too . It's not just about the revenue, it's also about diversifying our investment portfolio so that if one market gets tough, we're not all eggs in one basket .

The NHS needs to be more flexible with its pricing, I'm all for them finding ways to make new medicines more affordable but we can't just keep throwing money at the problem without thinking about how it affects other areas of the healthcare system .

the thing is, the us just seems like an easier place to do business right now, you know? they've got a huge market and some of the most advanced healthcare systems in the world. plus, they're willing to negotiate with pharma companies on the price of meds, which is a big deal. meanwhile, the uk's been trying to cut down on its revenue clawback rates and get more bang for its buck from pharma investments, but it seems like it's not working out as well as planned .

i think part of the problem is that the us has this super complex system with lots of intermediaries, which drives up costs. and then you've got the nhs trying to get more bang for its buck by cutting the revenue clawback rate, but it's not like they're going to start paying top dollar for meds or anything .

anyway, i'm not surprised that walmsley is saying the us is the place to be - gsk's already got a huge presence there and they're planning on investing even more . maybe the uk just needs to focus on finding other ways to make itself a more attractive destination for pharma companies, you know?

omg yaaas i'm like literally so hyped that Emma Walmsley is repping the US as the top destination for pharmaceutical companies' investment like who else can say they have a market with new drug launches and vaccines leading the way china's coming up but let's be real us is where it's at and 15% revenue clawback rate is like a dream come true for companies like GSK no need to pause or cancel investments over here meanwhile trump is just mad cuz his country can't compete with uk's NHS system let's just say walmsley knows what she's talking about

the us is definitely the top destination for pharma companies like gsk to invest in , and i think emma walmsley's comments are spot on. the market in the us is just so promising with all the new drug launches and vaccine developments happening there - it's no wonder companies like gsk are keen to get in on that action

on the other hand, the uk government's push to reduce the clawback rate from 22.5% to under 15% is a good start, but i think they need to be more realistic about what's achievable - we're talking about a pretty big reduction here . and with negotiations breaking down in late august, it's clear that the industry is still got some major challenges ahead of them.

it's also interesting to see the us president's comments on global funding for life-saving medications - he's right that we need more countries contributing to this effort . but ultimately, the issue is much more complex than just who's paying what - it's about creating a system that works for everyone and gets good meds to patients quickly

anyway, i think walmsley's plans to invest $30 billion in the us by 2030 are super ambitious, and if gsk can pull them off, we might see some real progress in the pharma sector

omg u no wat?? the us is def the top spot for pharma companies 2 invest in & launch new meds/vaccines ! Emma Walmsley from GSK says its cuz they lead the world in launches & r the most promisin market 4 biz dev opps . the uk gov is tryin 2 make brit a more competative player in pharma but it's hard wen US companies are makin so much .

i think the us government should lower the price of meds 4 good . dont get me wrong, i love the NHS & all but it's crazy how much money they gotta pay 4 meds . high drug prices in the us is cuz of all the intermediaries & admin costs . hope the NICE & gov can figure out a way 2 make brit more pharma-friendly tho

still think us is way better for biotech companies than uk might be some progress but its like, we need more than just a few billion pound investment lol what about infrastructure and talent pool? want to see some actual investment in research and dev instead of just trying to attract big pharma

I'm telling ya, this is all just a big web of intrigue! Emma Walmsley's statement about the US being the top destination for pharmaceutical investment sounds too good (or bad?) to be true. I mean, what's really going on here? Is GSK trying to control the narrative or something? And have you noticed how convenient it is that the UK government wants to reduce the revenue clawback rate just as negotiations break down? It's all about lining the pockets of Big Pharma, if you ask me! Meanwhile, Trump is saying one thing while the government is doing another. Something fishy is going on here... I'd bet my last dollar on it!

The US is just so welcoming to pharma companies with their big pockets I mean, who wouldn't want to invest in a country that's all about the benjamins? And let's be real, those "life-saving medications" they're always talking about? Yeah right, it's just a fancy way of saying "we'll give you more money if you make us richer ". I'm not surprised Emma Walmsley said that though, she's probably got some sweet stock options . Meanwhile, the UK is just trying to catch up with its own payment rates, and now they're worried about funding healthcare staff? Yeah, good luck with that. I mean, it's not like they're expecting us to somehow magically make more money appear out of thin air .

I'm low-key salty about this whole UK-US pharmaceutical deal . I mean, the US is already the top destination for investment, and now the UK's trying to play catch-up with some sweet deals ? It feels like they're just trying to buy their way into the market instead of actually making meaningful changes.

And what's with this revenue clawback mechanism? 22.5% of revenues returning to the NHS is already a pretty significant chunk, but now it's getting reduced to under 15%. Meanwhile, US companies are still raking in profits without having to pay that much back . It just doesn't feel fair.

I also think it's weird that they're pushing for better access to innovative treatments while trying to reduce costs for pharmaceutical companies themselves . Can't they see how the two don't exactly align?

Just thinkin', if the UK can get those meds prices down, they might actually attract more big pharma like GSK. Problem is, other countries are all about that life-saving meds life , and the US admin's all about keepin' it tight . Guess we gotta see how this all plays out ...