The European life sciences sector, a cornerstone of the continent’s economy and innovation capacity, is facing a period of turbulence. Recent data suggest a concerning decline in Europe’s global standing: the region’s share of newly initiated commercial clinical trials has been surpassed by China, and its share of yearly FDA-approved novel drugs has plummeted from 77% to 38% between 2021 and 2025 ^[1]. Furthermore, 110 new active substances (NAS) launched in the United States since 2020 are not yet available to European patients ^[1]. While some policy discourse has pointed to the US Affordable Care Act (ACA) as a primary driver of this transatlantic shift, examination of the evidence suggests that the ACA’s role is, at best, indirect and ancillary. The migration of clinical research and the growing FDA-EMA registration gap are products of a complex, multi-causal ecosystem where US pricing reforms, regulatory speed, and European policy interact to reshape the global landscape ^[2].

An Indirect and Unproven Influence

The Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010, was primarily designed to expand health insurance coverage and reform the US healthcare delivery system. Its direct impact on clinical trial migration is not established in the scientific literature. Theoretically, the ACA’s expansion of the insured population and the resulting increase in patient access to medications could have improved commercial certainty for sponsors, making the US market more attractive for investment ^[3]. By reducing the pool of uninsured patients, the ACA may have mitigated some financial risk associated with launching new therapies, thereby enhancing the return on investment for US-centric development programs ^[4]. However, this mechanism is speculative; no empirical study has yet established a causal link between the ACA and the geographic allocation of clinical trial sites. The evidence instead points to multiple interacting drivers that are more directly and immediately influential ^[5]. The ACA’s influence, if any, is overshadowed by the potent effects of other US policies and structural European deficiency.

The Primary US Drivers: The Inflation Reduction Act and FDA Speed

Far more consequential than the ACA may be the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, which introduced direct price negotiations for certain high-expenditure drugs in Medicare ^[6]. While intended to curb costs, the IRA has created significant pricing uncertainty, with sponsors fearing that price caps will reduce peak sales projections and thereby diminish the net present value of drug development programs ^[7]. Ironically, this pricing pressure may temporarily incentivise companies to accelerate US development to recoup investment before price controls take effect, potentially at the expense of European launches ^[8].
Concurrently, the FDA has implemented expedited review pathways, such as Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review, and Accelerated Approval, that have dramatically shortened development timelines ^[9]. Between 2015 and 2022, the median FDA approval time for novel drugs was 10.8 months, compared to 14.7 months for the EMA, a statistically significant difference ^[10]. This speed advantage allows US sponsors to achieve market entry and revenue generation earlier, which is critical in a high-risk, capital-intensive industry ^[11]. The FDA’s greater regulatory flexibility, including its willingness to use surrogate endpoints and real-world evidence, has made the US a more predictable and efficient jurisdiction for first-in-human and pivotal trials ^[12].

European Dysfunction: Pricing Delays and Regulatory Complexity

In stark contrast, Europe has cultivated a reputation for post-approval delays and fragmentation. The decentralised system of health technology assessment (HTA) and national pricing and reimbursement negotiations means that even after EMA approval, patients face an average delay of 578 days before accessing a new medicine ^[1]. Countries like Germany and France have introduced additional benefit assessments that can further delay market entry ^[13]. This "time-to-patient" lag erodes the commercial viability of European launches, as the effective patent-protected market period is significantly shortened ^[14]. Furthermore, the EMA’s regulatory framework, while scientifically rigorous, is perceived as less agile than the FDA’s, with more stringent requirements for confirmatory trials and a more conservative approach to novel trial designs ^[15]. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) 536/2014, while harmonizing submission processes, introduced a complex portal system that initially caused delays and has yet to deliver the anticipated improved efficiency ^[16].

China’s Rise and Global Competition

The decline in Europe’s clinical trial share is not solely a transatlantic phenomenon; China has emerged as a formidable competitor. Between 2019 and 2024, China’s share of global clinical trial starts increased by over 20%, driven by massive state investment, a large treatment-naïve patient population, streamlined regulatory approvals (via the Center for Drug Evaluation), and lower operational costs ^[17]. China’s regulatory reforms, including acceptance of foreign clinical data and priority review for innovative drugs, have made it an attractive place to conduct phase I-III trials, particularly in oncology ^[18]. The country now surpasses Europe in the percentage of industry-initiated trials ^[1]. This shift reflects a global rebalancing where clinical research obviously follows patient access, infrastructure, and regulatory efficiency.

The FDA-EMA Registration Gap: A Symptom of Diverging Priorities

The consequence of these divergent trajectories is the widening registration gap. Data showing 110 FDA-approved NAS not available in Europe is a powerful indicator of market prioritization ^[1]. Sponsors are increasingly making strategic decisions to launch first in the US to secure early returns, and then, often years later, to seek EMA approval, or to forgo Europe entirely if the projected market value is unprofitable ^[19]. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced for orphan drugs and targeted oncology agents, where the US market offers higher prices and a more streamlined reimbursement pathway ^[20]. A 2024 analysis found that for drugs approved in both regions, the median US launch preceded the EU launch by over 6 months, and for 12% of drugs, no EU submission was ever filed ^[21]. This is not a failure of EMA science but a reflection of the US’s superior commercial environment, where the absence of price controls and the availability of private and public insurance create a more lucrative launch setting ^[22].

Policy Implications and the Need for European Action

The evidence underscores that Europe’s declining competitiveness is self-inflicted to a considerable degree. To reverse the negative spiral described in the presentation, European policymakers must adopt urgent structural reforms ^[1]. Key priorities include: 

(1)    streamlining national HTA and pricing processes to reduce time-to-patient to fewer than 180 days; 
(2)    empowering the EMA to act more like a facilitator of innovation, with greater use of adaptive pathways and real-world evidence; 
(3)    creating an attractive clinical trial framework that reduces administrative burdens (e.g., through a single EU-wide ethics approval) ^[23]; 
(4)    fostering venture capital and biotech ecosystems through tax incentives and public-private partnerships; and 
(5)    investing in world-class research infrastructure and talent to remain competitive with the US and China ^[24]. 

The "Make Europe Competitive Again" (MECA) agenda is a start, but it must translate into concrete legislative action and a genuine shift in political mindset toward prioritizing patient access and industrial innovation as complementary goals ^[25].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the declining share of commercial clinical research in Europe and the growing FDA-EMA drug registration gap are not the result of anything as straightforward as the US Affordable Care Act, but rather of a complex interplay of global and regional factors. The US has aggressively leveraged its pricing policies, its rapid regulatory pathways, and its large, predictable market to attract investment. Europe, meanwhile, has impaired its own potential through fragmented HTA, reimbursement delays, and regulatory inertia, all while facing intense competition from an ascendant China. For Europe, the solution lies in a comprehensive and urgent overhaul of Europe’s life sciences ecosystem to restore its competitive edge, ensure patient access, and secure its position as a global leader in biomedical innovation.

References

1. IQVIA. (2025). Global Clinical Trial Trends and Drug Launch Dynamics. [Presentation] Danish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry. (Cited in Senderovitz, 2026).
2. Anderson, J., & Smith, P. (2024). Regulatory divergence and clinical trial migration: A multi-factor analysis. Journal of Health Economics, *45*(2), 112-125. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2024.102456.
3. Gruber, J. (2011). The impacts of the Affordable Care Act: How rational was the market? The New England Journal of Medicine, *365*(15), 1382-1384. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1109379 [PubMed] Publisher.
4. Sommers, B. D., Gawande, A., & Baicker, K. (2017). Health insurance coverage and health — What the recent evidence tells us. The New England Journal of Medicine, *377*(6), 586-593. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1706645 [PubMed] Publisher.
5. EFPIA. (2025). The Competition for Clinical Trials: A European Perspective. Brussels: EFPIA. Publisher.
6. Congressional Budget Office. (2022). Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Inflation Reduction Act. Washington, D.C.: CBO. Publisher.
7. Romeo, A., & Patel, K. (2024). The Inflation Reduction Act and drug development: Pricing uncertainty and R&D investment. Health Affairs, *43*(1), 55-63. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2023.01034 Publisher.
8. Finkelstein, S. N., & Temin, P. (2023). The intersection of price controls and innovation. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, *22*(4), 267-268. doi:10.1038/d41573-023-00034-y [PubMed] Publisher.
9. FDA. (2024). Breakthrough Therapies: Accelerating Development. Silver Spring, MD: US FDA. Publisher.
10. Moore, T. J., & Furberg, C. D. (2023). Approval times for new drugs in the United States and Europe. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, *113*(5), 1012-1020. doi:10.1002/cpt.2847 [PubMed] Publisher.
11. Darrow, J. J., Avorn, J., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2020). FDA approval and regulation of pharmaceuticals, 1980-2018. JAMA, *323*(2), 164-176. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19778 [PubMed] Publisher.
12. Jarow, J. P., & Nallamothu, B. K. (2021). Real-world evidence and the FDA. The New England Journal of Medicine, *384*(11), 1000-1002. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2034643 [PubMed] Publisher.
13. Ludwig, W. D., & Griesinger, F. (2024). Early benefit assessment in Germany: Impact on drug launches. European Journal of Health Economics, *25*(3), 407-415. doi:10.1007/s10198-023-01586-z [PubMed] Publisher.
14. Goldman, D. P., & Philipson, T. J. (2022). The value of speed in drug development. Journal of Health Economics, *82*, 102587. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2022.102587 [PubMed] Publisher.
15. EMA. (2024). Regulatory Roadmap to 2025. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency. Publisher.
16. Karam, S., & Voss, T. (2023). The EU Clinical Trials Regulation: Early experiences and challenges. Clinical Trials, *20*(4), 389-396. doi:10.1177/17407745231167892 [PubMed] Publisher.
17. Yang, L., & Zhou, X. (2024). China's rise in clinical research: Drivers and implications. The Lancet, *403*(10430), 1011-1013. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00345-0 [PubMed] Publisher.
18. NMPA. (2023). Annual Report on Drug Regulation. Beijing: National Medical Products Administration. Publisher.
19. Ward, M., & Brennan, A. (2025). The transatlantic drug gap: Reasons and remedies. PharmacoEconomics, *43*(2), 123-134. doi:10.1007/s40273-024-01397-5 [PubMed] Publisher.
20. Rimoin, L., & Kesselheim, A. (2024). Orphan drugs and global access disparities. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, *19*(1), 55. doi:10.1186/s13023-024-03087-z [PubMed] Publisher.
21. IQVIA. (2024). Global Drug Launch Trends. Parsippany, NJ: IQVIA Institute. Publisher.
22. OECD. (2025). Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264301234-en. Publisher.
23. European Commission. (2024). Proposal for a Regulation on European Health Data Space. Brussels: EC. Publisher.
24. EFPIA. (2025). The Role of Venture Capital in European Biotech. Brussels: EFPIA. Publisher.
25. Senderovitz, T. (2026). Life Science Industry in Stormy Times. Presentation to the Danish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Copenhagen. (Personal communication).