Sunday, November 29, 2015

One reason US drug prices stay so high

Scholar slams federal court refusal to limit "pay-for-delay" deals among drugmakers seeking to keep "monopoly" prices and profits

One reason US drug prices stay so high


Drugmakers "increase prices to consumers by billions of dollars a year" by paying potential rivals not to make cheap generic versions of popular medicines - and Congress, and now the courts, have been "walking away from aggressive scrutiny" of the practice, writes Rutgers-Camden law school professor Michael A. Carrier.

In April, Carrier wrote me in a note last night, "a panel of three Second Circuit judges upheld a settlement involving the antibiotic ciprofloxacin hydrochloride (Cipro), the blockbuster drug used to treat bacterial illnesses," but urged the plaintiffs to appeal to the full circuit.

"Bayer had paid $398 million to firms interested in making generic versions of Cipro in return for the generics agreeing not to enter the market during the term of Bayer’s patent." Citing an earlier case re the breast-cancer drug Tamoxifen, the New York-based circuit court approved of Bayer's Cipro deals. But "because of the ‘exceptional importance’ of the antitrust implications" of paying companies not to make drugs, "we invite plaintiffs-appellants to petition for rehearing" on the broader public issues.

They did - only to deny a full review in a decision yesterday. "The court did not give its reasons, but one judge, Rosemary Pooler, issued a blistering dissent that the issue 'deserves reexamination.'

"A major concern with the Bayer settlement is its inclusion of a 'reverse payment.' ... By delaying generic entry, the (original manufacturer) dramatically increases its monopoly profits and uses a portion of these profits to lavish windfalls" on generic drugmakers. Like paying farmers not to grow crops.

"A central policy behind the Hatch-Waxman Act, promoting generic competition and challenges to invalid patents, has been stymied by these pay-for-delay agreements. 

"In return for millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars, the only generic (drugmaker) able to receive exclusivity under the Act agrees not to challenge the patent and not to enter the market for years.

"Now that the full Second Circuit has closed the door on the issue, the available options are quickly disappearing... (One) option is for Congress to weigh in." But that's not promising: "Settlement provisions were dropped from health-care reform at the last minute.  And the substance has been watered down from the House’s initial ban on reverse-payment settlements to the Senate’s more flexible version that would allow the parties to explain their reasons for the agreement.

"In short, the Second Circuit’s denial of en banc review slams one of the last remaining doors on the American consumer.  As a result of today’s ruling, the increased prescription drug prices consumers have paid are more likely to continue."

We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

PhillyDeals posts interviews, drafts and updates that Joseph N. DiStefano writes alongside his Sunday and Monday columns and ongoing articles about Philadelphia-area business.

DiStefano studied economics, history and a little engineering at Penn. He taught writing and research at St. Joe’s. He has written for the Inquirer since 1989, except when he left a few times to work at Bloomberg and elsewhere. He wrote the book Comcasted, and raised six kids with his wife, who is a saint.

Reach Joseph N. at, 215.854.5194, @PhillyJoeD. Read his blog posts at and his Inquirer columns at Bloomberg posts his items at NH BLG_PHILLYDEAL.

Reach Joseph at or 215 854 5194.

Joseph DiStefano
Also on
letter icon Newsletter