President Trump’s threat to strong-arm drugmakers will drive up costs, stall cures, and blunt America’s medical edge.

A mericans enjoy some of the most advanced medical care in the world, including world-leading cancer treatments, cutting-edge procedures, and faster access than is available almost anywhere else. But excellence comes at a price: $14,750 per person annually, or 17.6 percent of our economy, the highest share of medical spending of any country in the world. Much of this isn’t just a reflection of superior care. It’s the result of decades of expanding government regulations and subsidies, from Obamacare to the Inflation Reduction Act, which have pushed the price of even basic care far beyond inflation.

Now, President Donald Trump is threatening to strong-arm drugmakers with “every tool in our arsenal” if they “refuse to step up” and lower prices. While certain high prices are unacceptable, price controls are the wrong prescription. They won’t rein in costs. They will stifle innovation, delay lifesaving breakthroughs, and ultimately leave Americans worse off.

The president should remember that price controls don’t work. In the closing days of his first administration, federal district courts in Maryland and California temporarily enjoined the government’s enforcement of a rule that sought to implement drug price controls in Medicare, and the rule was eventually withdrawn. We can make health care more accessible and affordable without breaking the law, crushing innovation, punishing businesses, or harming patients. Vague threats of government retribution against private companies that fail to comply with the latest demand posted on Truth Social to “repatriate increased revenue” make a mockery of the rule of law and turn policy into a blunt instrument of intimidation.

Consider how pharmaceutical innovation actually works: Most companies pursue a number of potential breakthroughs knowing that only a small fraction of these will ever make it to market. Profits from the few successful drugs attract the capital required for companies to continue their research into new treatments, even as the chances of profiting from any one project are slim. In a study of 35 large pharma companies, spanning 18 years, the average net profit margin was just 16.5 percent. Importantly, among these companies, the median spend on R&D — on which future breakthroughs rely — was 16.5 percent of all revenue, which far exceeds the share of revenue spent on research in other sectors.

Clinical drug development has a 90 percent failure rate. Shrinking the profits of the winners through price controls would not only reduce incentives but also threaten the capital that is necessary to create tomorrow’s lifesaving medicines. For start-ups especially, the threat of price controls makes it far harder to attract investment. These companies don’t yet have the revenue and profit stream to fuel R&D, and outside capital is a requirement. Investors often fund an array of such start-ups in the hopes that the overall return will adequately compensate them for engaging in these riskier ventures.

Here’s the rub: Once a drug clears the trials phase and is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use, the fixed cost of development is already expended. Now the company needs to recoup that investment and potentially generate profit. The marginal cost per each additional unit produced following approval is far lower than the total cost (which includes the cost of R&D). The marginal cost is low enough to allow a company to sell pharmaceutical products even in markets with strict price controls. However, it’s the higher costs incurred by the companies — not taken into account by government price caps — that allow companies to actually create the successful drugs and generate profit, which in turn is required by investors to induce more risk-taking on future possible breakthroughs.

The United States already subsidizes medical advances that benefit patients around the world. Importing foreign-style price controls would further drain the investments needed to fuel the R&D that drives future breakthroughs and makes new treatments possible. Price controls are essentially a tax on success: Tax something more, expect less of it.

Through market-driven solutions rather than heavy-handed government mandates, it is possible to lower health care costs and expand access without stifling innovation or deterring investment. The path forward should include streamlining the FDA approval processes for generic drugs and biosimilars, reforming the 430B Pharmacy Benefit Management program, and allowing customers to buy drugs transparently and directly from producers. Moreover, eliminating “certificates of need,” which let established health-care providers block new entrants from competing, could reduce prices and broaden access. Finally, supporting disruptive enterprises, such as Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drug Company, could also foster competition and innovation.

Government intervention, though often well intended, has held America’s health-care system back. Free-market solutions driven by competition, transparency, and innovation are a better prescription and offer better results: lower prices, higher-quality care, and a future of lifesaving breakthroughs for patients.

Tim Chapman is the president of Advancing American Freedom, where Marc Wheat serves as general counsel.