A data-driven look at the first round of Medicare drug price negotiation, how it compares to the pricing pressure already reshaping the industry, and what it signals for the rounds still to come
GLOBAL BIOPHARMA DESK — On January 1, 2026, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry crossed a threshold it had spent decades avoiding: for the first time in Medicare’s history, the federal government directly negotiated the price of a drug — and won. Ten of the program’s costliest medications now carry government-negotiated “Maximum Fair Prices” that are, on average, roughly 60% below their 2023 list prices. It is the most significant single intervention in U.S. drug pricing in a generation, and its second and third rounds are already underway.
At Bionext AI Market Insights, we’ve been tracking pricing pressure across the industry from multiple angles this year — voluntary self-pay discounting at Eli Lilly, patent-cliff generic erosion at Novartis, and now, direct government negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Of the three, this is the one with the broadest structural implications, because it is neither optional nor temporary. It is the first fixed point in a program that expands every year going forward.
The First 10: What Actually Changed
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) selected these drugs for negotiation because they represented the highest total Medicare Part D spending among medications with no generic or biosimilar competition. Together, the 10 drugs accounted for $56.2 billion in total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs in 2023 — about 20% of all Part D drug spending — and were used by roughly 9 million Medicare enrollees.
| Drug | Manufacturer | Primary Indication | 2023 List Price (30-day) | 2026 Negotiated Price | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Januvia | Merck | Type 2 diabetes | $527 | $113 | -79% |
| NovoLog/Fiasp | Novo Nordisk | Diabetes (insulin) | $495 | $119 | -76% |
| Farxiga | AstraZeneca | Diabetes, heart failure, CKD | $556 | $178 | -68% |
| Enbrel | Amgen | Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis | $7,106 | $2,355 | -67% |
| Jardiance | Boehringer Ingelheim / Lilly | Type 2 diabetes, heart failure | $573 | $197 | -66% |
| Stelara | Johnson & Johnson | Crohn’s disease, psoriasis | $13,836 | $4,695 | -66% |
| Xarelto | J&J / Bayer | Blood clots, stroke prevention | $517 | $197 | -62% |
| Eliquis | Bristol Myers Squibb / Pfizer | Blood clots, stroke prevention | $521 | $231 | -56% |
| Entresto | Novartis | Heart failure | $628 | $295 | -53% |
| Imbruvica | AbbVie / J&J | Blood cancers | $14,934 | $9,319 | -38% |
CMS projects the negotiated prices will generate roughly $6 billion in Medicare program savings in 2026, plus $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket savings for beneficiaries. Independent analysis from KFF corroborates the scale: based on the negotiated prices for these 10 drugs, CMS estimated Medicare would have saved $6 billion — a net savings of 22% — had the prices been in effect in 2023.
The Context That Makes This More Than a One-Time Event
Two details in the underlying HHS analysis are, in our view, more important than the headline discount percentages themselves.
First, this reverses years of pricing trend, not just a single number. Nine of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation had list price increases of 20% to 55% between 2018 and 2023, while the list price for only one declined — by just 1%. In other words, the negotiated prices aren’t clawing back a temporary spike; they’re unwinding roughly five years of compounding annual increases across almost the entire cohort. That reframes the negotiation program less as a discount event and more as a trend reversal mechanism — one that resets the pricing trajectory investors and payers should model going forward, not just the current price level.
Second, the program is explicitly cumulative and expanding. This was never designed as a one-off. Negotiated prices for a second set of 15 Part D drugs are set to take effect in 2027, and negotiations for a further round covering drugs available in 2028 are already concluding, with CMS estimating even greater savings — 44% net — on that second cohort, driven in part by the larger number of drugs involved. Notably, that second round includes GLP-1 therapies including Ozempic — meaning the incretin category we’ve covered extensively in Lilly’s growth story is about to face its own negotiation event, on top of the self-pay pricing dynamics already in play.
How This Compares to the Other Pricing Pressures We’re Tracking
Biopharma companies in 2026 are absorbing price compression from at least three distinct, structurally different sources, and conflating them leads to poor forecasting:
1. Voluntary self-pay discounting (e.g., Lilly’s Zepbound/Mounjaro strategy). Manufacturer-controlled, reversible in principle, aimed at expanding a still-underpenetrated market. Price is a lever the company chooses to pull.
2. Patent-cliff generic erosion (e.g., Novartis’s Entresto). Structural and effectively permanent once triggered, driven by loss of exclusivity rather than negotiation. Price collapses independent of any commercial decision — Entresto’s Part D price alone will fall from $628 to $295 (-53%) under the negotiation program, compounding on top of the separate, larger erosion already underway from generic competition itself.
3. Government price negotiation (this program). Involuntary, non-negotiable beyond the process itself, and — critically — the only one of the three with a legally mandated expansion schedule written into statute. A manufacturer cannot opt out of having a qualifying drug selected once it crosses the eligibility thresholds; the primary lever available is the excise tax exposure for non-agreement, which functions as a strong compliance incentive rather than a genuine alternative.
Entresto is a useful case study precisely because it now sits at the intersection of the second and third categories simultaneously — facing both generic-driven erosion and a negotiated Part D price cut in the same window. That overlap is likely to become more common as more products approach both loss of exclusivity and negotiation eligibility around the same multi-year horizon.
What This Means for the Industry Going Forward
For revenue forecasting: Analysts and internal planning teams should treat IRA negotiation eligibility as a scheduled, modelable event on the same order of predictability as a patent expiration date — not a probabilistic policy risk. CMS has now demonstrated, twice, that it will negotiate and reach agreement within the statutory timeline.
For pipeline and launch strategy: With small-molecule drugs becoming negotiation-eligible after 9 years on market (13 years for biologics), companies are increasingly front-loading indication expansion and evidence generation into the pre-negotiation window, since post-negotiation pricing leaves less room to recoup incremental R&D investment through label expansion alone.
For payer and PBM dynamics: As negotiated Maximum Fair Prices become the price floor for a growing share of the highest-volume Part D drugs, we expect PBM rebate structures — historically built around list-price spreads — to face continued pressure to restructure around post-negotiation net pricing, echoing the direct-to-consumer disintermediation trend we’ve already flagged in the obesity category.
For M&A and portfolio construction: Assets nearing negotiation eligibility (9–13 years post-approval) but without patent-cliff exposure in the same window may become relatively more attractive acquisition targets than those facing negotiation and genericization concurrently — the Entresto scenario is the pattern to watch for and price around.
BioNext AI Market Insights View
The first round of Medicare drug price negotiation should be read as a proof of concept, not a peak. With 15 more drugs negotiated for 2027, another round already concluding for 2028, and a legally mandated cadence of up to 20 additional drugs per year thereafter, the cumulative share of Part D spending subject to negotiated pricing will compound quickly — and the categories affected will increasingly include some of the industry’s largest current growth drivers, GLP-1 therapies chief among them. Companies that treat this as a static, one-time event risk mispricing their own multi-year revenue models. Companies that treat it as a recurring, scheduled feature of the U.S. market — as predictable as a patent cliff, if not yet as familiar — will be better positioned to plan around it.
About Bionext AI Market Insights Bionext AI Market Insights delivers data-driven intelligence on biopharma commercial strategy, market access, and competitive dynamics for investors, strategy teams, and industry stakeholders.
Sources: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program negotiated prices fact sheet and infographic; HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE); Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), “Key Facts About Medicare Drug Price Negotiation”; Center for Medicare Advocacy.
This analysis is based on publicly available government disclosures and third-party reporting current as of publication. It does not constitute investment advice. List prices reflect 2023 Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) for a 30-day supply; negotiated Maximum Fair Prices are effective January 1, 2026, and apply to Medicare Part D only.
By
