Kathleen Jeager
|
Are healthcare consumers being cheated out of millions in prescription drug savings because of deals between brand-name and
generic companies? The Federal Trade Commission says it's true and is working to put a stop to what it says are unfair payment
settlements between brand and generic pharmaceutical firms.
The FTC, along with Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports, is supporting legislation in Congress to end the practice of allowing innovator companies to pay makers of generic drugs
to delay—potentially for years— the release of the cheaper prescription drugs into the market. "We're seeing brand-name drug
companies pay off generic makers under the guise of a settlement to delay getting cheaper prescription drugs on the market,"
said Michael Wroblewski, project director, consumer education and outreach at CU.
These types of agreements, called exclusion payment or reverse payment settlements, allow brand-name drugmakers to pay would-be
generic competitors, which then agree to delay introduction of their less costly, but otherwise identical, versions of the
original medicines, according to the FTC. Although reverse payments have been fairly common in the industry for several years,
for healthcare consumers, the process has translated into the loss of billions of dollars a year in savings, said Wroblewski.
"These settlements between drug companies jeopardize the health of millions of Americans who have difficulty obtaining safe
and effective medicines at affordable prices."
Because brand drugs provide big profit margins, the drug companies do not want to face competition from generics, Wroblewski
continued. These firms have a powerful incentive to pay the generic applicant to delay entry into the market because the payment
is still less than what the brand-name maker would lose once a generic enters the market, he noted. Disturbing new trend
An FTC study released in January contained the agency's analysis of a "disturbing new trend" in drug settlements filed during
fiscal year 2006, which ended in September of that year. According to the study, half of all patent settlements in FY 2006—14
out of 28—involved compensation to the generic patent challenger and an agreement by the generic firm to refrain from launching
its product for some time.
In 2006, the cholesterol-lowering drugs Zocor (simvastatin) and Pravachol (pravastatin), the antidepressants Zoloft (sertraline)
and Wellbutrin (bupropion), and the nasal spray Flonase (fluticasone) all went generic. Employers, governments, and patients
paid $9.4 billion for these drugs in 2005—the year before they were introduced generically, according to CU. Because generic
drugs can be up to 70% less expensive than brand drugs, Wroblewski said, there is potential annual savings of $6.6 billion
on those five drugs alone, assuming all brand prescriptions were filled with the generic version.
Additionally, generic competition following successful patent challenges to just four products—Prozac (fluoxetine), Zantac
(ranitidine), Taxol (paclitaxel), and Platinol (cisplatin)—is estimated to have saved consumers more than $9 billion, according
to the FTC.
This year, and in 2008, several brand-name drugs, including Prevacid (lansoprazole), Imitrex (sumatriptan), Zyrtec (cetirizine),
and Effexor (venlafaxine) are expected to go generic.
Threat of rising drug costs
Up until the late 1990s, the FTC had successfully blocked reverse payment agreements. In 2003, the commission ruled that a
1997 settlement between Schering-Plough and Upsher-Smith regarding a potassium supplement widely used by older Americans for
high blood pressure and heart disease violated antitrust laws. However, in 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
Court ruled that the company is indeed within its patent owners' rights to use such agreements.
Resources: 
Drug Topics archives are now available on ModernMedicine.com, a new online resource designed to meet the evolving needs of physicians.