SoylentNews

Drug Companies are Sitting on Generics—43% of Recently Approved Aren’t for Sale

posted by martyb on Sunday February 10 2019, @01:53PM   
from the just-greed dept.

upstart writes:

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Drug companies are sitting on generics—43% of recently approved aren't for sale

Of the more than 1,600 generic drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since January of 2017, more than 700—or 43 percent—are not for sale in the US, according to a new analysis by Kaiser Health News.

The finding means that many pricy, brand-name drugs are not facing the competition that could help drive down soaring prices. Among the drugs missing in action are generic versions of the expensive blood thinner Brilinta and the HIV medication Truvada. Moreover, of the approved drugs that would offer a brand-name drug its first competition, 36 percent are being held off the market, the analysis found.

---

Original Submission

• Re:Pay-to-delay should be illegal Re:Pay-to-delay should be illegal (Score: 3, Informative) by RandomFactor on Sunday February 10 2019, @02:25PM (1 child)

  by RandomFactor (3682) on Sunday February 10 2019, @02:25PM (#799110) Journal

  Pay for Delay
  Pay-for-Delay: When Drug Companies Agree Not to Compete [ftc.gov]

  One of the FTC’s top priorities in recent years has been to oppose a costly legal tactic that more and more branded drug manufacturers have been using to stifle competition from lower-cost generic medicines. These drug makers have been able to sidestep competition by offering patent settlements that pay generic companies not to bring lower-cost alternatives to market. These “pay-for-delay” patent settlements effectively block all other generic drug competition for a growing number of branded drugs. According to an FTC study, these anticompetitive deals cost consumers and taxpayers $3.5 billion in higher drug costs every year. Since 2001, the FTC has filed a number of lawsuits to stop these deals, and it supports legislation to end such “pay-for-delay” settlements.

  So apparently this is based on patent settlements. Still, they sound textbook anti-trust to me.

  Why is it the FTC that addresses this instead of the FDA?

  --
  В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Pay-to-delay should be illegal (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday February 10 2019, @07:54PM

  by Thexalon (636) on Sunday February 10 2019, @07:54PM (#799190)

  It's the FTC rather than the FDA because the issue has to do with anti-trust and restraint of trade rather than the safety of the pills in question.

  --
  The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.

  Parent