By Rajan George
813 words, 4 minutes read time
When a patient was prescribed Advair for his bronchial problems, he was shocked by the exorbitant cost. An Advair Diskus, which contains only 28 blisters, cost about $300 in the United States. The price varied from pharmacy to pharmacy, reaching as high as $500.
Later, while visiting his home country, India, he took the disk to a medical shop to see if it was available—and was thrilled to find it at a significantly lower price: about $20 for a disk with 60 blisters. That’s a full month’s supply in a single disk, compared to the 28-blister version available in the U.S.
This means that an Advair Diskus purchased in the U.S. for $300 or more provided only a 14-day supply, requiring patients to purchase more than two disks each month (except in February). In contrast, the disk purchased in India for $20 provided a full month’s supply. The version sold in India was branded Seretide, while the U.S. version was called Advair. Both Advair (U.S.) and Seretide (India) were manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, contained the same ingredients, and were distributed worldwide at dramatically different prices.
Checking prices in other countries for the same or equivalent medication revealed costs ranging between $50 and $100—still far more affordable than in the United States. This pricing disparity is not limited to Advair.
Prescription medicine prices in Canada and Mexico—also North American countries—are significantly lower than in the United States. This phenomenon defies justification, though proponents of high prices argue that pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars and 10 to 15 years on research and development before introducing a drug to the public.
While that argument is understandable, the question remains: why are only U.S. patients burdened with the heavy cost of funding drug development, while other countries benefit from lower prices?
The sad irony is that the U.S. government funds these pharmaceutical companies with billions of dollars to support their research and development. Yet, after reaping the benefits, these companies turn around and charge American taxpayers 10 to 20 times more than what patients in other countries pay—essentially bilking the American public.
In February 2025, tragic news broke about Cole Schmidtknecht, a 22-year-old who died of a severe asthma attack because he couldn’t afford his inhaler. His insurance had lapsed without appropriate warning. When he went to Walgreens to pick up his medication, he was informed it would cost $539 instead of the usual $65 with insurance.
Unable to afford the lifesaving medication, he returned home—where he later died. His parents are now suing Walgreens for his death.
Sadly, this is not an isolated case. It happens far too often. People without insurance coverage struggle to obtain lifesaving medications, endangering the lives of millions of Americans. Many people resort to importing medication from other countries, but government restrictions have made that increasingly difficult.
Patients who cannot access international markets are left to face the exorbitant prices charged by U.S. pharmacies. Insurance companies often refuse to cover terminally ill patients, leaving them trapped between a rock and a hard place.
President Trump’s executive order brought much-needed relief to countless Americans suffering under the burden of unaffordable drug prices.
No president before him had seriously addressed the issue or even acknowledged the crisis. It took a leader who understood the common man and felt his pain. Critics often dismiss him as a billionaire disconnected from everyday struggles, but no one can deny that President Trump has done more for the common man than most of his predecessors.
Notably, after President Trump signed the executive order to lower drug prices, pharmaceutical company stock prices surged—indicating that helping the people did not necessarily harm the industry.
Many presidents who entered the Oval Office with modest means left as rich men, yet failed to champion the causes of ordinary Americans. Their policies often favored lobbyists who funded their campaigns, rendering them ineffective and bound by obligations to special interests.
President Trump was different. His campaign was primarily funded by small donors, with only a few major contributors joining later. He faced insurmountable opposition on his path to the presidency because the establishment feared his policies, which favored the people over powerful elites.
While other politicians make promises that fade once they gain office, President Trump keeps his word. His efforts to disrupt the established order terrify traditional politicians, who continue to offer nothing more than empty rhetoric.
It is indeed a good day for America to have a president like Donald J. Trump, who keeps his promises and works for the common man—unlike his detractors, who abandon the causes they have promoted their entire lives the moment they recognize that Trump supports them.
It should not be taken for granted that those who slander the president will join him in this vital cause. Regardless, today is a good day for America.
About The Author
