If you are one of those people who believes there is no such thing as a coincidence, you’ll have to ask if the Washington Post is pushing one of its editors’ spousal agendas.
Reuters reported a while back that the Federal Trade Commission was considering ending “pay for delay” practices with generic drugs.
Basically, when a generic drug manufacturer is ready to come on the scene with a generic, a name brand pharmaceutical company pays the generic to delay entry to the market. Well, the FTC cannot really stop it, but it has been urging Congress to do something about it. One of the FTC Commissioners pushing an end to “pay to delay” is Jon Leibowitz, who acts as chairman.
From Reuters:
The 21 deals in the first nine months of the 2010 fiscal year is up sharply from the 19 made in all of 2009, and up from 16 deals in 2008 and 14 in 2006 and 2007, the FTC said.
But lawmakers also questioned whether the FTC overstepped its bounds during a specific pay-for-delay probe.
At the hearing of a House of Representatives judiciary subcommittee, some lawmakers questioned FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz about criticisms of the agency’s probe of generic drug company Watson Pharmaceuticals (WPI.N).
Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee took up the matter and voted 15 to 15 on a measure ending “pay to delay.” On the exact same day as the Senate Appropriations Committee was voting, the Washington Post editorialized about this not widely noticed issue.
Sitting on the Washington Post editorial board is Ruth Marcus. Ms. Marcus is also known as Mrs. Jon Leibowitz.
The vote sounds like a good idea. It probably will help lower drug prices. That’s not the point. Shouldn’t the Washington Post disclose that one of its editorial board members is married to one of the FTC Commissioners who has been pushing this issue?
Would the Washington Post have paid attention to an Appropriations Committee vote on this matter otherwise?
Were it a blog post at a blog, the Washington Post would no doubt take issue with what seems to be an undisclosed conflict. But I guess when you’re the MSM you can do things you wouldn’t want others to do.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
Why would it be a good idea?
momac Friday, July 30th at 1:25PM EST (link)There’s almost no way that whatever bill would _only_ address that one transaction.
But let’s say it does. It lowers the amount of potential money that can be made by the actual developing drug company, and reduces their incentive to spend so much on development. I don’t think that’s a good thing.
If it is a good thing, then why wouldn’t we just compel them to turn the formula over to generics immediately for production? That would also likely lower drug prices.
But it will also likely slow development. As does our FDA, as does our general legal climate. But nobody is counting the loss of life through drugs that haven’t been invented. So no problem.
bills always have consequences
MF (Diary) Friday, July 30th at 2:39PM EST (link)There’s almost no way that whatever bill would _only_ address that one transaction.
I am in violent agreement with you here. Congress NEVER does anything good just for goodness’ sake.
As for the rest of the post, as i understand it, there are laws in place that determine how long a drug manufacturer’s patent protects them from another company producing a generic. Thus, when company A creates a new drug, they get years (I don’t know the number) to sell it with no competition. That’s how they can recoup their extremely high investment costs. After that time runs out, company B can start creating and selling a generic equivalent of the drug. The problem is that company A then pays company B to wait to sell the generic, because company A gets huge profits off the sales of its drug, and once the generic comes out, its profits are dramatically reduced. (There’s that beautiful price driver, competition.)
To me that kind of activity appears to be an anti-competitive action that has to be covered already by existing laws. What am I missing? Or is this exactly what the bill is supposed to address? If so, you can bet that drug manufacturers will pour millions of dollars into defeating it.
But naturally, if such a bill is created, it will have all kinds of loopholes, pork and/or carveouts for the favored few, at our expense. Remember, no good dead can go unpunished.
I have to wonder
edintexas Saturday, July 31st at 1:12PM EST (link)I wonder how many companies the patent holder must pay to hold generics off the market. Surely there isn’t only one company which is capable of producing any given generic. So if company A takes the payment to keep the drug off the market, why wouldn’t company B or C (or both) bring their version to market?
the Washington Post has NO morals, NO dignity...
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Friday, July 30th at 4:24PM EST (link)and NO journalists REAL journalists working at their leftwing publication. They ought to just sell out the damn paper to Soros because they are one in the same!
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action