What’s going on here?

The US government took steps to slim down the country’s healthcare costs, but Big Pharma’s not ready to swallow that pill.

What does this mean?

The US is known for one-dollar hot dogs, historic cowboy towns, and the promise of unlimited opportunity. Oh, and for having the highest medicine costs in the developed world by far. Well, the government seems to think that last bit’s souring the tone a little. It signed the Inflation Reduction Act around a year ago, part of which gives Medicare – the taxpayer-funded healthcare system for retirees – the power to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. And on Tuesday, the government named the first ten prescription drugs to be affected: a range of treatments for the likes of diabetes, heart failure, and blood thinning. By 2026, average medicine prices are expected to be sliced in half – and that should save Medicare around $100 billion by 2031.

Why should I care?

For markets: No financial pain, no gain.

That list of ten is just the start: more drugs will be added every year, and analysts reckon the reductions could cut 5% off the drugmaking industry’s revenue. But Big Pharma has a reputation for putting profit first, so naturally, it’s not keen on this whole help-the-people idea. In fact, the likes of Johnson & Johnson and Merck have been busy filing lawsuits that argue the move is unconstitutional. That, then, may be why stocks of some of the biggest drugmakers barely moved after the release.

The bigger picture: Big Pharma’s big protest.

Big Pharma knows how to formulate a threatening argument. The industry’s protesting that lower prices will squash motivation to make new drugs, especially ones for rare diseases. But even so, it’s estimated the shift might reduce the number of new drugs available by just 1% in 30 years, so don’t start scanning the black market just yet.

What’s going on here?

The UK government’s found a way to support its struggling homebuilding sector, and all it had to do was sacrifice the country’s clean water and environmental future.

What does this mean?

British builders don’t have much incentive to make houses these days, with het-up mortgage rates putting potential buyers off the idea of settling down. That’s only made England’s housing crisis worse: the country’s building the fewest new homes a year since the 1920s, falling way behind government targets. But luckily, it turns out there’s one arbitrary, unimportant blocker we could toss out: environmental protection. An organization representing developers said earlier this year that rules to protect Britain’s waterways are stopping thousands of homes from being built. Now the government’s reportedly planning to scrap the initiative, originally inherited from the European Union, in an apparent sign of agreement that no greater good should get in the way of human right to lounge on an L-shaped couch with a premium countryside view.

Why should I care?

The bigger picture: Mother Nature, we barely knew ye.

It’s true, the move will probably lead to tons of pollutants flooding Britain’s rivers, a possibly catastrophic long-term environmental issue. But with the potential of a little leg-up in the homebuilding sector on the line, the government clearly only had one option. Remember, too, that it backed out of plans to make landlords insulate their energy-leaking homes, and you might question the country’s green agenda. But with the public split on initiatives like London becoming the world’s biggest low-emission zone, politicians are realizing they can swap environmental good deeds for something far more important: votes.

Zooming out: Everything’s fine and dandy.

The government throwing environmental protection rules out the window is reportedly set to be pitched as one of the benefits of Brexit-induced freedom from the European Union. You know, that covetable list: the loss of hundreds of thousands of vital workers, lethargic international trade, and disappearing foreign investment.