Becky Corbin: Cancer care deserves better than QALYs and foreign price controls
When policymakers talk about “drug price controls,” it’s often framed as a commonsense solution to rising health care costs. I understand that impulse. As a former Pennsylvania legislator and as a breast cancer survivor, I know firsthand how stressful and expensive serious illness can be.
But good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes. Proposals like “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) drug pricing may sound simple, but for cancer patients, they carry serious risks that deserve closer scrutiny.
MFN would tie what Americans pay for certain medicines to prices set by foreign governments. Those governments don’t just negotiate prices differently; they often decide which treatments patients can access using rigid formulas that assign a dollar value to a year of life or to a person’s health status. These metrics, commonly known as quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs, routinely undervalue treatments for people living with cancer, disabilities, or chronic illness.
As someone who has sat in an exam room waiting to hear whether a treatment has been effective, I find that deeply concerning.
Cancer care isn’t one-size-fits-all. New therapies don’t just extend life in abstract terms — they help people stay in the workforce, care for their families, and remain independent. Reducing those outcomes to a calculation designed by distant bureaucracies ignores both human dignity and medical reality.
There’s a reason Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has repeatedly rejected the use of QALYs in federal health programs. MFN would effectively import those same foreign decision-making standards through the back door by pegging U.S. prices to countries that rely on them. That undermines longstanding American safeguards designed to protect patients, not spreadsheets.
MFN also raises serious concerns about innovation. The United States leads the world in developing breakthrough cancer treatments precisely because we reward risk-taking, investment, and scientific discovery. That leadership didn’t happen by accident. It grew out of a system that encourages private innovation rather than government price-setting.
Pennsylvania has a strong stake in this approach. Our Commonwealth is home to world-class hospitals, research universities, and life sciences employers that contribute to both patient care and economic growth. Developing a new cancer medicine takes years of research and billions of dollars, with no guarantee of success. Policies that cap prices based on what other countries are willing to pay make those investments harder to justify and the first casualty is often the next breakthrough.
Supporters of MFN argue that Americans pay more because the system is broken. They’re right about the problem. But MFN doesn’t fix the real drivers of out-of-pocket costs, such as insurance design, lack of transparency, and middlemen practices. Instead, it targets the very innovation patients rely on, while offering no guarantee that savings will reach the people who need them most.
I am wary of policies that promise quick fixes while ignoring long-term consequences. As a cancer survivor, I know that progress matters and that today’s research becomes tomorrow’s standard of care.
We can pursue affordability reforms that respect patient choice, protect access, and strengthen American leadership in medicine. Importing foreign price controls that devalue life and chill innovation isn’t the answer.
Cancer patients in Pennsylvania, and across the country, deserve better.
Becky Corbin previously served in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives where she was a member of the Health Committee. A chemist by training, she previously worked in the pharmaceutical industry.
