A Critical Assessment of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Market Post RFK Jr’s Appointment as the Secretary of Health and Human Services
Introduction
The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is the top official overseeing the Department of Health and Human Services, a federal agency responsible for safeguarding the health of Americans and providing essential human services. This report will critically analyse the impact of Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s appointment as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services on the American pharmaceutical market. Throughout this paper I will provide recommendations for Prosper’s portfolio based on the how this affects their healthcare-related holdings. To begin I will explain the threats to Prosper’s healthcare investments as a result of this appointment, such as drug-pricing pressures and regulatory uncertainty, before I highlight potential investment opportunities as a result of the growth in wellness and nutrition sectors. Following this I will provide a broader market perspective, analysing cross-sector ripple effects as well as geopolitical and economic factors. Ultimately, I aim to present a compelling case for the portfolio adjustments which I will subsequently recommend.
Threats to Healthcare Holdings
I suggest that the most apparent threat to Prosper’s healthcare holdings, as a result of RFK Jr’s appointment, would arise as a result of regulatory uncertainty and oversight. As the secretary of HHS, RFK Jr could dramatically shift health agency priorities as he has signalled support for downsizing agencies such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to decrease reliance on user fees, redirecting those funds to alternative health approaches (JD Supra, 2025). This might curtail drug research pipelines and slow drug approvals, especially if such FDA staff cuts and stricter review standards, such as for vaccines, delay new therapies. Furthermore, reduced NIH grants and staffing would also hit biotech innovation and clinical trials, undermining the research and development that many pharmaceutical and biotech firms rely on (JD Supra, 2025).
Another threat to Prosper’s healthcare holdings arise in the form of drug pricing pressures as Kennedy’s anti-“Big Pharma” stance raises the likelihood of aggressive drug price reforms. He has publicly argued that U.S. drug prices should be capped so companies cannot charge Americans more than they charge Europeans (Donnellan, 2024). In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he specifically noted that a Ozempic, a popular diabetes drug, costs ten times more in the U.S. than in Germany (Donnellan, 2024). He views this discrepancy as unjustifiable which I suggest leads to an expectation for the HHS under RFK Jr. to support measures such as Medicare price negotiations and price caps, squeezing profit margins on drugs that have long relied on U.S. market pricing power. However, while the pharmaceutical lobby are rallying to oppose these measures, as seen by the warning issued by industry groups like PhRMA, who argue that “government price setting” could undermine innovation (Morse, 2025), it seems that Kennedy’s tenure tilts policy risks toward the downside for drug revenues.
Furthermore, assessing investor sentiment and volatility, it appears that the prospect of an RFK Jr.-led HHS has already negatively impacted markets. After his nomination, major pharmaceutical stocks were sharply sold off, with European pharma giants decreasing 6%, roughly $86 billion in value, in the days following the U.S. election, compared to a 2% drop for U.S. drugmakers (Donnellan, 2024). This reaction reflects fears of Kennedy’s general mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry and vaccines. As such, it appears that as investors anticipate tougher regulations and pricing constraints, healthcare equities could see continued volatility as policies materialise. Moreover, this sentiment may particularly sour on companies that are vaccine producers and high-price drug makers as they appear to be targets of RFK Jr.’s agenda, further increasing stock price swings and risk premiums across the sector.
Returning to Prosper’s portfolio-specific risks, it is clear that their healthcare holdings will require further scrutiny under RFK Jr’s new regime. Their divestment of Biogen in December proves to be the correct decision as the company could face future pressure if pricing on its therapies, such as its Alzheimer’s drugs, comes under Medicare negotiation or if research collaborations with the NIH slow down. Furthermore, I suggest that any companies in the portfolio that are developing vaccines or are reliant on FDA fast-tracking may encounter setbacks as a more sceptical HHS could impose stricter approval requirements for safety. Moreover, life-science tool and medical device firms could feel second-order effects as if NIH and academic research funding is cut, demand for lab equipment, which would impact companies like Agilent, might soften along with the broader biotech innovation ecosystem. In this way it is clear that companies within Prosper’s healthcare sleeve that depend on heavy research and development investment, premium pricing, or favourable regulatory timelines now carry higher risk.
Opportunities for Healthcare Investments
Now that I have outlined the threats to Prosper’s healthcare holdings that might arise as a result of RFK Jr’s appointment to HHS secretary, I will examine the opportunities for future healthcare investments. An initial opportunity for Prosper’s portfolio might arise as a result of a boom in alternative medicine and wellness sectors. RFK Jr.’s preference for “root cause” healthcare solutions in conjunction with his scepticism of pharmaceuticals could lift the alternative medicine industry. This has resulted in supplement manufacturers, holistic treatment providers, and wellness brands viewing his leadership as a chance to expand with lighter regulation. Kennedy has expressed interest in treating chronic illness through lifestyle changes rather than just drugs (Ashoup, 2025). This implies HHS might ease restrictions on supplements and natural remedies as indeed, the wellness industry is “excited about a reversal of the FDA’s 40-year crusade against dietary supplements” (Long, 2024). As such, supplement makers may be able to make bolder marketing claims and roll out products more freely, driving growth in nutraceuticals and herbal remedies. This could translate into a financial boom for companies selling vitamins, supplements, and other alternative health products. However, it is important to note here that while this may be a financial opportunity for Prosper, I would argue that investing in such companies in order to increase Proper’s portfolio valuation would be incompatible with the organisation’s ESG aims. This is because the rhetoric that surrounds alternative medicine appears to suggest that they are an overall risk to public health as such alternative medicines are in no way a substitute for traditional pharmaceuticals (Ashoup, 2025).
As such, I suggest that a better opportunity for healthcare investment comes by identifying potential sector winners. In a landscape where big pharma could be on the defensive, certain healthcare players may benefit. Companies focused on generics and lower-cost drugs might gain if policies favour cheaper treatments over brand-name pharmaceuticals. Likewise, firms that have positioned themselves in preventative care, nutrition, and health monitoring could thrive as the healthcare model shifts toward wellness. For example, providers of diabetes prevention programs, weight management solutions, or tele-health nutrition coaching may see greater support if the HHS emphasises lifestyle interventions. Even some pharmaceutical companies could adapt and find opportunity as those willing to invest in U.S. manufacturing or align with “America First” supply chain goals might curry favour. This is evidenced by a trend of European drugmakers considering more U.S. investments in order to get “closer to the source” of policy changes (Donnellan, 2024). Additionally, any biotech developing treatments that mesh with RFK Jr.’s priorities, such as novel approaches to chronic disease that aren’t purely pharmaceutical, could find new funding streams or faster approval pathways. In sum, the “peril for some means promise for others,” as one supplement industry leader asserted as companies in the wellness, generic medicine, and preventive health niches stand to be relative winners.
Finally, another opportunity for Prosper might arise as a result of the growth in wellness and nutrition sectors. A broader definition of healthcare under RDK Jr may extend into food and lifestyle as he and his supporters have signalled that “everything must now be on the table, from the food we eat to the medicines Big Pharma has peddled” (Morse, 2025). This suggests increased attention to nutrition, organic food, and wellness services as tools to improve public health. As such, sectors like healthy foods, fitness technology, and stress reduction or mental wellness programs could see a surge in public initiatives or funding. For instance, companies producing organic or natural foods and supplements might benefit from HHS campaigns for better nutrition. Moreover, wellness tech, such as health wearables and apps for lifestyle management, could also ride a wave of consumer interest as Americans “eager to take more direct control” of their health explore non-traditional options (Ashoup, 2025). From this, I suggest that Prosper’s portfolio could capitalise by investigating companies that intersect technology and wellness, such preventive health platforms or telemedicine focused on holistic care. These areas, once peripheral, may become high-growth sub-sectors under an HHS leadership that priorities prevention over treatment.
A Broader Market Perspective
RFK Jr’s appointment as HHS secretary has not just affected America’s pharmaceutical market as while healthcare might bear the brunt, other sectors in Prosper’s portfolio such as technology and industrial sectors may be indirectly impacted. I argue that if drug prices are indeed reined in and healthcare costs are decreased in the way that Kennedy imagines, it could eventually benefit the economy at large, thus potentially freeing consumer spending for other areas resulting a modest plus for consumer and tech companies. However, it is important to note that aggressive health policies might also spook equity markets generally, prompting risk-off sentiment that hits high-growth sectors like technology in the short term. Prosper’s tech holdings might not face direct regulation from HHS, but any broad market volatility or rotation away from healthcare could change investor allocation patterns. Additionally, if RFK Jr.’s regulatory approach extends to scrutinising Big Tech’s role in health data or misinformation, that could introduce new debates affecting tech sentiment. Furthermore, Industrial companies could see both opportunities and challenges as while a push to reshore pharmaceutical manufacturing and medical supply chains would drive demand for industrial equipment, construction, and logistics, potentially benefiting firms in those areas, conversely, heightened U.S. nationalism in healthcare might strain international relations, which can spill over into trade tensions impacting multinational industrial and tech businesses.
Furthermore, it is clear that, as is the case with the wider Trump administration, Kennedy’s tenure comes with an “America First” undercurrent that could influence global trade and multinational companies. For example, there has been indications of a possible universal import tariff on pharmaceuticals, which would not only squeeze foreign drugmakers but could invite retaliation affecting other industries (Donnellan, 2024). U.S. healthcare policy may thus become a flashpoint in U.S.-EU trade as European pharmaceutical companies fear an anti-Europe slant, having already lost significant market value on Kennedy’s rise (Donnellan, 2024). As such, If European drug companies suffer revenue hits, since U.S. sales often subsidise their global operations, that could dampen economic activity in pharma-heavy economies like Switzerland, Germany, and the U.K., indirectly affecting international holdings in Prosper’s portfolio. Moreover, efforts to reduce dependence on Chinese and Indian pharmaceutical ingredients, an issue RFK Jr and others highlighted uring COVID supply disruptions (Long, 2024), could lead to broader decoupling from global supply chains. As a result of this, multinational healthcare companies might restructure supply lines and invest in U.S. facilities to hedge against these risks (Donnellan, 2024).This trend could benefit some U.S. industrial players such as raw material suppliers and facility builders, but also raise costs for global tech and industrial firms if trade barriers harden. As such, I suggest that it is imperative that Prosper account for these macro dynamics, as seemingly isolated health policy shifts could reverberate through currency exchange rates, trade policy, and global investor confidence, influencing sectors well beyond healthcare.
Portfolio Adjustment Recommendations
Now that I have presented a market analysis post RFK Jr’s appointment, I will present my adjustment recommendations for Prosper’s portfolio. Initially, it is clear that Prosper must mitigate healthcare risks as given the new headwinds, Prosper should consider trimming or hedging positions in companies most exposed to RFK Jr.’s policies. For instance, it may be prudent to reduce overweight positions in large pharmaceutical or biotech stocks that rely on U.S. pricing power for outsized profits. If total divestment is not desirable, using options or stop-loss strategies could limit downside if sentiment worsens. Moreover, I suggest that heightened monitoring is essential for any portfolio companies in the vaccine space or those awaiting FDA approvals as their outlook may change with stricter oversight. As such, it is necessary that Prosper diversify within healthcare by shifting some capital from drug makers to medical device, diagnostics, or healthcare IT firms, as these areas are less directly targeted by drug pricing reform. Additionally, companies with strong international diversification, or limited U.S. sales exposure, might be safer within healthcare as they are less affected by American policy.
In order to weather volatility and if less enthusiastic to pivot healthcare investment into medical IT companies, I suggest that Prosper may tilt the portfolio toward sectors expected to be resilient or benefit from the changing landscape. Historically defensive sectors such as consumer staples or utilities might provide stability if healthcare equities gyrate as these could act as a ballast in the portfolio. Technology and industrial holdings could also be maintained or increased, assuming they remain relatively insulated from HHS policy risk and indeed see incremental gains from any positive knock-on effects such as lower employer healthcare costs or new infrastructure investment in manufacturing. Furthermore, within healthcare, I suggest that Prosper scout for companies positioned in alignment with of RFK Jr.’s ‘America First’ agenda. These include generic drug manufacturers, which could gain volume as cheaper meds are favoured, and healthcare service providers that focus on preventive care or cost efficiency. Prosper could explore adding a wellness-oriented stock to capture growth in nutrition and alternative health sectors, aligning with social finance goals and potential market upside as ‘wellness’ goes mainstream. Another avenue is companies enabling healthcare cost reduction such as telemedicine firms, pharmacy benefit managers, or innovative insurers that might thrive if the system shifts towards value and prevention. In contrast, exposure to firms heavily dependent on cutting-edge biomedical research and development, which might be hampered by NIH cuts, should be balanced with those having more near-term, practical healthcare solutions.
Overall, in order to tweak the portfolio’s asset allocation for resilience, I suggest that Prosper opt for a modest underweight position in the healthcare sector until clarity improves, reallocating some of that capital to other sectors or cash. Emphasising high-ESG performers in less-affected industries can uphold Prosper’s mission without courting undue regulatory risk. For example, increasing stakes in clean energy, sustainable tech, or education-oriented stocks could provide growth and impact while HHS policy headwinds play out in healthcare. Within the health allocation, a rotation is advisable as the portfolio should move away from companies facing “peril” and toward those with “promise” under the new regime (Long, 2024). This might mean favouring a nutrition company or a supplement retailer, provided it meets ESG criteria, in place of a pharmaceutical giant, or choosing a healthcare logistics firm that might benefit from reshoring efforts over a biotech reliant on government-funded science. In terms of geography, maintaining some non-U.S. exposure is wise to buffer against American policy swings, though one should avoid over-concentration in European pharma right now, given the transatlantic pricing clash (Donnellan, 2024). Lastly, I suggest that Prosper should retain a certain level of liquidity in order to invest quickly as policy-driven selloffs can create attractive long-term entry points in great companies. In this way, following these recommendations, the portfolio can not only mitigate risks but potentially capitalise on the new directions in U.S. health policy to achieve both financial and social returns.
Conclusion
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services represents a pivotal shift in the regulatory and policy landscape of the American pharmaceutical market. His strong scepticism of the pharmaceutical industry, push for aggressive drug pricing reforms, and potential restructuring of federal health agencies introduce significant risks to traditional drug manufacturers, particularly those reliant on high-margin pricing and rapid FDA approvals. Moreover, his emphasis on wellness, alternative medicine, and preventative healthcare presents opportunities for companies in the generics, nutrition, and holistic health sectors. For Prosper, these changes necessitate a strategic reassessment of its healthcare holdings as I have suggested that the portfolio reduce exposure to high-risk pharmaceutical stocks while increasing investment in resilient sub-sectors such as medical devices, healthcare IT, and wellness-focused companies. Furthermore, beyond healthcare, broader market effects, including shifts in industrial and tech sectors tied to U.S. health policy, must also be considered as by proactively adjusting its portfolio to align with these emerging trends, Prosper can mitigate risks and position itself to capitalise on new investment opportunities in a rapidly evolving healthcare landscape.
References
Ashoup (2025). Trump’s War on Health Care: Public Health Watch — Protect Our Care. [online] Protect Our Care. Available at: https://www.protectourcare.org/trumps-war-on-health-care-public-health-watch-3-3-25/
Donnellan, A. (2024). Breakingviews - European pharma’s growth prescription: pivot to US. Reuters. [online] 28 Nov. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/european-pharmas-growth-prescription-pivot-us-2024-11-28/.
Morse, S. (2025). Reaction mixed to RFK Jr.’s confirmation as HHS secretary. [online] Available at: https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/reaction-mixed-rfk-jrs-confirmation-hhs-secretary
JD Supra. (2025). Under RFK Jr., US Health Policy and FDA Operations May See Major Shifts | JD Supra. [online] Available at: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/under-rfk-jr-us-health-policy-and-fda-7358189/
Long, J. (2024). Dietary supplement industry cheers RFK Jr.’s HHS nomination. Supplysidesj.com. [online] Available at: https://www.supplysidesj.com/supplements/dietary-supplement-industry-cheers-rfk-jr-s-hhs-nomination