Trump signed a new executive order aimed at healthcare pricing
President Donald Trump’s latest executive order focuses on enhancing price transparency in healthcare. This directive is aimed at ensuring that healthcare providers disclose the “actual prices” of services and items, rather than estimates, by enforcing a 2019 order he signed during his first term.
A recent report from PatientRightsAdvocate.org, a non-profit organization, revealed that only 21.1% of hospitals fully complied with the transparency mandate from Trump’s 2019 executive order. In his new order, Trump pointed out that hospitals and health plans had not been properly held accountable for incomplete or missing pricing data. He also criticized the Biden Administration for failing to enforce the transparency requirement, which he believes would eliminate the confusion surrounding drug pricing by ensuring that health plans publicly disclose the true prices they pay for prescription drugs.
Trump emphasized that his goal is to “put patients first” and provide them with the necessary information to make informed healthcare decisions. Reflecting on the executive order, he stated, “This is one of the biggest steps we can take to reduce healthcare costs. It takes time to fully implement, but the Biden Administration’s decision to end it immediately was a terrible mistake in my opinion.”
Trump also noted that the new order strengthens the original policy by introducing key changes. He pointed out that this measure gives patients the ability to negotiate prices, a practice that he said was not even possible when visiting a hospital or seeing a doctor in the past. “This is one of the biggest things we can do to lower prices,” he added, referring to the initiative’s potential impact.
Acknowledging that the order might face opposition from hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry, Trump made it clear that the policy is designed to benefit patients. When he first signed the executive order in 2019, it faced resistance from hospital groups, who challenged it in court, arguing that it infringed on their First Amendment rights and hindered competition. However, the court rejected their claims.