Big Pharma’s “Pay for Delay” tactics keep generic drugs off the market

It takes a ton of time and money for a pharmaceutical company to produce a new drug.  Some companies claim an average of 12 years and over $350 million just to get one new drug from the research lab to your medicine cabinet.  And only then does a brand name drug starts to finally make money for its maker.  But after a number of years in the marketplace (usually between 7-12 years in the U.S. and up to 20 years in Canada), that brand name drug’s exclusive patent protection expires, thus opening the market to competition from cheaper generic forms of the same drug.  When generic drugs become available, the market competition often leads to much lower prices for both the original brand name drug and the generic forms.

So when a drug falls off the patent cliff, drugmakers stand to take a substantial hit to their profits from then on.  The bigger the blockbuster drug, the bigger that financial loss will be.  Continue reading

Does the medical profession need to wean itself from its “pervasive dependence” on Big Pharma money?

Judges do not hear cases in which they have a financial interest. Reporters do not write stories about companies in which they have a financial interest. By the same token, doctors should not have a financial interest in treatments they are evaluating, or accept gifts from the makers of drugs they prescribe.” 

That’s what Dr. Marcia Angell says, and she ought to know.  She spent over 20 years as editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. She wrote these words last January in a letter to Dr. Nada Stotland, president of the American Psychiatric Association in response to Stotland’s criticisms of her essay in the New York Review of Books.

Back then, the editorial board at the New York Times had decreed:

“The medical profession needs to wean itself almost entirely from its pervasive dependence on industry money.”

Dr. Angell agreed with the Times, adding:

“Pervasive conflicts of interest corrupt the medical profession, not in a criminal sense, but in the sense of undermining the impartiality that is essential both to medical research and clinical practice.” 

Dr. Angell disagreed strongly with psychiatrist Dr. Stotland’s assertion that very few drugs of any kind have been tested on children. Not so, claims Dr. Angell.  Continue reading

“Pay for Delay”- how off-patent brand name drugs fight off generics

Drug companies are acutely aware of what’s called the ‘patent cliff’, when their expensive brand name medications lose their patent protection, thus opening up the market for cheaper, identical generic competition. This is good news for consumers, but very bad news for Big Pharma. Lipitor*, for example, Pfizer’s blockbuster cholesterol medication, is set to fall off the patent cliff in 2011.

But even last year’s sales of the biggest selling drug on the planet already showed declines due to growing competition from other cholesterol drug manufacturers.  See also: Is Big Pharma Onboard the Titanic? Continue reading