Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Freakonomics)   Usually, a drug company that holds a patent will sue a copycat who creates a knockoff. But frequently, a pharmaceutical firm ends up paying the copycat instead. Here's why   (freakonomics.com) divider line 9
    More: Interesting, copiers, Bayer, federal courts, drug companies  
•       •       •

2639 clicks; posted to Business » on 16 Aug 2012 at 12:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



9 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-16 12:12:57 PM  
So, this type of bald-faced collusion is legal, and Medicare Part B requires zero competition/bidding for drugs, and yet it's "Obamacare" that's gonna bankrupt us? Fark you with a pitchfork, Big Pharma.
 
2012-08-16 01:18:29 PM  
Wow that sounds really shady to me, and I work in this business (so I'm getting a kick out of these replies, naturally).

Although if this were really a problem, couldn't they just amend the law to say that the beginning of the 180 days of generic exclusivity begins on either marketing of the generic drug, or X days have elapsed, whichever comes first?
 
2012-08-16 01:32:43 PM  
Of course they could amend the law. But that would benefit consumers to the detriment of large corporations.
 
2012-08-16 02:02:41 PM  

dahmers love zombie: So, this type of bald-faced collusion is legal, and Medicare Part B requires zero competition/bidding for drugs, and yet it's "Obamacare" that's gonna bankrupt us? Fark you with a pitchfork, Big Pharma.


Only because we say it's legal. Lawmakers we elected created the game and then we get pissy when the players figure out how to win?

/you're picking the wrong target
 
2012-08-16 05:29:23 PM  

dahmers love zombie: So, this type of bald-faced collusion is legal, and Medicare Part B requires zero competition/bidding for drugs, and yet it's "Obamacare" that's gonna bankrupt us? Fark you with a pitchfork, Big Pharma.


FTA:

The answer turns on the particularities of the drug market and the regulatory system drug makers operate in.

Go read the article -- this happens because of poorly-thought out regulations creating what is, in effect, an unintended monopoly on generic competition to a researched product.
 
2012-08-16 05:44:40 PM  
For 5 whole months? Cry me a river all the way to the RIAA headquarters.
 
2012-08-16 11:18:20 PM  
um, i thought the generic manufacturers can submit ANDA as the patent is about to expire so they can be the first to get the approval to make generic medication and get the 6-month exclusivity. The Brand name manufacturer can only sue them if they generic manufacturer is marketing/selling the product before the patent expires. i.e. the companies that plan to manufacture the generic can make the drug to prove bio-equivalence ( a requirement for the generics to be approved).

/newbie pharmacist
 
2012-08-17 09:06:55 AM  

dahmers love zombie: So, this type of bald-faced collusion is legal, and Medicare Part B requires zero competition/bidding for drugs, and yet it's "Obamacare" that's gonna bankrupt us? Fark you with a pitchfork, Big Pharma.


You sure that's not Medicare Part D, which has price differences from the VA that can be measured in percent cost differences as low as about 50% and as high as over 1000%?
 
2012-08-17 09:32:59 AM  

badsah11: um, i thought the generic manufacturers can submit ANDA as the patent is about to expire so they can be the first to get the approval to make generic medication and get the 6-month exclusivity.


What you describe is a "paragraph III" filing.

They can also submit the ANDA at any time (years and years before the patent expires) by claiming that "the product does not infringe on the listed patents or that those patents are not enforceable" - a "paragraph IV filing". Link

If the generic isn't infringing on the original patent, then they could go to market immediately. The brand-name companies are paying them not to. At that point, the other generic companies can't use the same "first patent isn't valid" argument because the 180-day exclusivity clause basically gives the first generic claimant a sort of mini-patent that only starts ticking from point of manufacture. The other companies would have to figure out a 3rd drug that didn't infringe on either the original patent or the mini-patent.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report