Senate, courts debate legality of patent settlement deals
NEW YORK —For all its successes, the generic drug industry has had a lot to worry about this year. Its main lobbying organization in Washington, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, gained a pyrrhic victory with the creation of an abbreviated approval pathway for follow-on biologics in the healthcare-reform bill—the pathway is now law, but with a much longer period of data exclusivity for innovator biologics than the group hoped for—while Teva Pharmaceutical Industries left the organization, as did former president and CEO Kathleen Jaeger. Now, on top of that, one of its most important legal assets is under fire with the hair-thin passage of a ban by a Senate committee two months ago.
Generally, companies seeking to market generic versions of drugs before the expiration of the patents protecting the branded drugs have done so by filing regulatory approval applications containing a paragraph-IV certification, a legal assertion that the patents covering a branded drug are invalid, unenforceable or won’t be infringed by a generic version. When this happens, the branded drug maker will sue the generic drug maker, but the cases often result in a settlement between the two parties that allows the generic drug maker to launch its product after waiting a while, but usually before the patent expires.
For generic drug makers and the GPhA, this is a way to get generic drugs on the market earlier than they would if the cases went to trial or if the generic companies waited until all the patents had expired, as well as a way to avoid the costly legal fees of going to trial. Not only that, but the first company to get the generic version of a drug on the market gets six months in which to directly compete with the branded version, which has been a tremendous source of profit for generic drug makers over the years. But for the Federal Trade Commission, such politicians as Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., and the editorial board of The New York Times, the settlements are sneaky “pay-for-delay” deals in which branded and generic drug makers, normally competitors, conspire to keep cheaper alternatives to expensive branded drugs out of patients’ hands.
The latest political blow to patent settlements came in July when the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a ban on them by a 15-to-15 vote. “The anti-consumer provision was slipped into the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill in the latest attempt to move forward legislation that has been unable to pass as a freestanding bill,” a GPhA statement in response to the passage read. “Forcing policy changes into an appropriations bill is a procedural facade with highly negative impact; it will result in fewer generics medicines coming to market prior to patent expiration.”
According to a report released in January by RBC Capital Markets, over the last decade, generics companies have prevailed in 48% of patent litigation cases that have gone to trial but in 76% of cases when settlements are included, while more than half of all cases are settled or dropped. Meanwhile, the FTC contended that patent settlements cost consumers $3.5 billion per year and keep generic drugs off the market for an average of 17 months longer than when deals don’t include payment.
But the term “pay-for-delay” might be misleading, however. Under the law, the GPhA’s Jaeger told Drug Store News in an interview earlier this year, a generic drug company is forbidden from delaying launch after the patents covering the branded drug have expired. In addition, the “payment” often isn’t in the form of money, but in the form of an agreement by the branded drug maker not to launch a so-called “authorized generic.” An authorized generic essentially is a branded drug marketed under its generic name, usually through a third-party company, which would give the branded drug company an extra weapon in its marketing arsenal by providing a competitor to the actual generic drug during the latter’s customary six months’ exclusivity. The FTC has spoken in favor of authorized generics, saying they help keep drug prices down overall, while the GPhA opposes them.
But soon after the Senate committee’s political punch in the nose came a legal ice pack. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declined Sept. 7 to reconsider a ruling made earlier this year in favor of Bayer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries subsidiary Barr Labs concerning the companies’ settlement over the anthrax treatment Cipro (ciprofloxacin), affirming that the deal did not violate antitrust laws.
Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet introduces CalciOs
VIENNA, Va. Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet has expanded its offerings to include calcium-fortified cookies designed to treat occasional heartburn.
CalciOs cookies are vanilla-flavored cookies, each one providing 30% of the daily value of dietary calcium, Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet said. The cookies contain calcium carbonate, designed to treat heartburn relief. CalciOs also are free of artificial colors and preservatives.
Pharmacies should get out of tobacco-selling, into smoking-cessation game
WHAT IT MEANS AND WHY IT’S IMPORTANT The news that San Francisco’s board of supervisors gave preliminary approval to ban tobacco sales at all retailers that operate pharmacies, including mass merchants and grocers, is a step in the right direction, because if drug stores are going to be banned from selling them, then all retail pharmacy outlets should be banned. However, there’s an even bigger picture to consider.
(THE NEWS: Report: San Francisco supervisors OK tobacco sales ban at pharmacies. For the full story, click here)
As many dollars as pharmacy retailers made selling cigarettes, there is much more to be gained in medication therapy management, and there is a significant opportunity for retail pharmacy to have a greater stake in the future of health care.
Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable disease, illness and death worldwide, according to the American Lung Association. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 443,000 American lives each year, including those affected indirectly by "secondhand" smoke.
Furthermore, smoking-related healthcare expenditures are a major drain on the U.S. healthcare system. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking cost the United States more than $193 billion in 2004, including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct healthcare expenditures, or an average of $4,260 per adult smoker.
Clearly, there’s a positive role that pharmacists can play in smoking cessation. To further support this, a recently published study on the "effect of a pharmacist-managed smoking-cessation clinic on quit rates" found that pharmacists can play a vital role in smoking cessation, especially in a group setting, as they can reach more people within the same time frame.
The study found that at three months and six months, 47.6% and 52.4% of patients reported being smoke-free, respectively. The study was conducted on patients that had participated in the pharmacist-managed Smoking Cessation Group Clinic at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Participants received structured group counseling on various topics associated with cessation.
It also should be noted that in August, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that Medicare coverage for seniors trying to quit smoking was expanded to include everyone on Medicare.