GSK CEO Emma Walmsley: US Is the Best Place for Pharma Investment as UK Drug Pricing Row Drives Firms to America

Walmsley points to US leadership in drug launches and market access; UK cuts new-medicine clawback to 14.5% amid warnings that high rates and approval rules are hurting investment

The chief executive of GSK, Emma Walmsley, has told the BBC that the United States is the best place for pharmaceutical companies to invest, saying the US leads the world in drug and vaccine launches and — together with China — offers the strongest opportunities for business development.

Why GSK is looking west

Walmsley’s comments come as GSK outlines a plan to invest $30 billion in the US by 2030 and reports that roughly half of the company’s revenues already come from the American market. She said GSK would not “shy away” from its US interests, a remark that echoes recent statements by other senior industry figures, including AstraZeneca chief Pascal Soriot, who has stressed the “vital importance of the US” to global drugmakers.

Executives cite faster regulatory pathways, larger launch markets and higher prices in the US as key drivers for early launches and commercial success. The US market’s complex pricing and intermediaries have long produced higher list prices than in most other countries, a reality President Donald Trump has frequently criticized, arguing that other wealthy nations pay too little for medicines.

UK pricing row prompts policy shifts

The remarks come against the backdrop of a public row between the UK government and the pharmaceutical sector over how much revenue companies should return to the NHS from new-medicine sales. Ministers confirmed that the proportion companies must pay back will fall next year from 22.5% to 14.5% — a concession the industry demanded after negotiations broke down in August and several firms paused or cancelled large UK investments.

The government also agreed to spend 25% more on new NHS medicines as part of a zero-tariff deal with the US, while payments for older branded medicines will remain between 10% and 35%. Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), welcomed the cut in the clawback rate but said a proposed 15% cap for the next three years was only a first step and that the UK must do more to accelerate adoption of cost-effective medicines.

Regulatory changes and NHS funding concerns

At the same time, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) said it would for the first time raise the price threshold at which new medicines are judged cost-effective. The Department of Health has proposed giving ministers a limited power to set that threshold — a move that could change how and when new treatments reach NHS patients.

The ABPI estimates that spending on medicines could rise by about £1 billion over the next three years depending on NICE approvals and uptake, a figure that has prompted concern that increased drug spending may crowd out other NHS priorities such as staff and equipment.

Industry response and wider implications

Several multinational firms, including AstraZeneca and the US company MSD/Merck, halted or scaled back planned UK investments after the breakdown in talks. The policy changes and public debate underline a broader trend: global drugmakers are increasingly weighing where regulatory speed, price realization and market access align best with their R&D and commercial strategies — and for many, the US currently ranks highest.

For the UK, the current challenge is to balance affordability for the NHS with policies attractive enough to retain and attract investment. Ministers say the reduced clawback rate and planned regulatory tweaks are designed to improve competitiveness, but industry leaders and patient groups will watch closely to see whether those changes translate into sustained investment and earlier patient access to innovative medicines.