A drug approved in one of those countries has a significantly accellerated path to approval in the US. It doesn't have to be immediate.
In addition to the legal changes, this also requires at least 2 drugs to have gone through this accellerated approval process to become available in the US.
I realize this may be hard to judge. I will be relatively strict
If no legal changes from today, resolves NO
If there is a clear simple policy - "If it's okay in <other country>, it's okay in the US with minimal checks (<1 year average for first 3 drugs), YES
if "we allow some accelerated data sharing allowed to faciliate the process" or similar process which only applies to some partners or some parts of the process, such taht the first 3 drugs on average take >=1 year for approval, then NO
Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely even with significant structural change. My understanding from talking to people who have worked in pharma and biotech is that the US foots much of the bill for drug research, in both time and money. FDA approval often opens the doors elsewhere because of how long, expensive, and stringent it is, even though the US is generally considered to be more prescription-friendly than most places. And while handing off these costs would be beneficial, it's unlikely that others would willingly take them up.
Moreover, it's not aligned culturally with historical US-international relations; in many cases the US considers itself exceptionalist and won't accept others' standards or share burden equally (see airplane security, travel visas, economic treaties, nuclear and military development, etc.).
So, even if another government reliably enforces greater due diligence, I believe it's unlikely the US will accept reciprocity.