Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday May 20 2018, @01:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the dishonor-on-you,-dishonor-on-your-cow dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Update 5/17/2018: The FDA has now launched the website listing the names of brand name drugs and their makers who have stood in the way of generic drug companies trying to make more affordable alternatives. You can view the list here. It includes notable medications, such as Accutane (for acne), Methadone (used for opioid dependency), and Tracleer (to treat high blood pressure in the lungs). The brand name drug makers to be shamed includes big hitters such as Celgene Corp, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Gilead Sciences Inc, and Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, now a Johnson & Johnson company. Our original story, published May 16, is unedited below.

The Food and Drug Administration plans this week to effectively begin publicly shaming brand-name drug companies that stand in the way of competitors trying to develop cheaper generic drugs.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb told reporters on Monday and Tuesday that the agency will unveil a website on Thursday, May 17 that names names of such companies. More specifically, the website will publicly reveal the identity of 50 branded drugs and their makers that have blocked generic development. The website will also be updated "on a continuous basis" to list additional names.

In fielding questions from reporters, Gottlieb denied that the effort was a form of public shaming. "I don't think this is publicly shaming," Gottlieb said, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. "I think this is providing transparency in situations where we see certain obstacles to timely generic entry."

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/fda-to-start-naming-names-of-pharma-companies-blocking-cheaper-generics/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday May 20 2018, @04:00AM (4 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Sunday May 20 2018, @04:00AM (#681766) Journal

    The deal is you disclose your invention and the Government will enforce a monopoly on your behalf for an agreed time. After that time it is free for everyone to use.
    Who is not living up to that deal?

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 20 2018, @04:05AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 20 2018, @04:05AM (#681767) Journal

    Who is not living up to that deal?

    Both parties are living up to that deal. Just because something becomes free to use doesn't imply any obligation to help others figure out how to use it. The generics aren't under any obligation to reveal their trade secrets either.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @05:26AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 20 2018, @05:26AM (#681787)

    You're barking up the wrong tree. Many medicines that have been in the headlines for obscene prices are not under patent monopoly.

    The problem is barrier of entry for independent manufacture of these medicines.

    We need to reduce the barrier of entry for companies to add new generics to their brand. The free market is a valid solution for the scope of this particular problem.

    There are many, many other problems with the price of healthcare in general, some/many of which the free market is unable to solve.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Jiro on Sunday May 20 2018, @08:27AM (1 child)

      by Jiro (3176) on Sunday May 20 2018, @08:27AM (#681809)

      There is no free market here. The competitor is not permitted to produce the generic until he does tests that require samples of the first company's product. If there was a free market, the competitor wouldn't need permission--they'd just do it. And if there was a free market, the first company wouldn't be the only source of samples anyway, since the fact that it is the only source of samples depends on the government-granted patent monopoly it had during previous years.

      • (Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:23PM

        by anubi (2828) on Sunday May 20 2018, @12:23PM (#681839) Journal

        Yup, kill off the "artificial monopoly: legal extortion crafted by Congress", and stuff like this will be like going to the dollar store for a bottle of aspirin. I am quite happy my doctor finds quite cheap generics for what ails me. So far, everything has done what needed to be done.

        My best take on this whole mess is that pharmaceuticals, like software, changes for increased profitability, with efficacy taking a distant back seat.

        --
        "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]