US President Donald Trump has proposed raising tariffs on imported medicines to 150 percent, and potentially to 250 percent, as a way to boost US domestic production. How would such a policy affect Taiwan’s pharmaceutical market?
About 75 percent of medicines in Taiwan are imported. Much less is exported to the US. Many of Taiwan’s biopharmaceutical companies have established operations in the US. If the US government raises tariffs on drug imports, it would benefit these Taiwan-backed US companies to become even more competitive.
In Taiwan, medical institutions apply to the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) to register drug prices according to reimbursement benefits and payment standards. These institutions negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies, often driving them down and squeezing profits. For instance, under the National Health Insurance system, Plavix — a drug used to prevent atherosclerosis — costs NT$36, compared with the equivalent of NT$239 in the US.
If higher tariffs disrupt the global pharmaceutical supply chain by raising costs and reducing output, and if purchase prices in Taiwan remain capped, companies might prioritize selling to higher-margin markets. Under free-market conditions, this could lead to shortages of brand-name drugs in Taiwan.
While brand-name and generic drugs are essentially the same in terms of ingredients, dosage and form, the former carry higher prices due to research and development costs. Generics, produced after patents expire, must still meet the Good Manufacturing Practice standards set by the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme, ensuring safety and quality equivalent to the originals.
To mitigate the risk of brand-name drug shortages, Taiwan’s pharmaceutical industry must strengthen its capacity to produce generics, reducing reliance on imported brands. Locally manufactured generics could serve as a vital substitute in the event of supply disruptions.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a civil servant at the Public Health Bureau
Translated by Lai Wen-chieh
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS