Generic drugs and competition
Article from the British magazine The Economist (August 6, 2009).
Especially for the Pirate Party of Russia
')
Since at the moment, many governments have difficulty paying their medical bills, they are starting to pay more attention to the prices of medicines. This may seem unfair, given that pharmaceuticals account for only one-fifth of all the costs of medical care, as well as the fact that innovations can fade away if they are not funded. Nevertheless, it is believed that large manufacturers overestimate drug prices too much and suppress independent manufacturers who produce similar drugs cheaper. The governments of Canada and Japan have shown interest in this issue. And this time they really have something to criticize.
The most flagrant offense is a transaction, the essence of which is that the patent owner pays independent producers for delaying the production of a cheaper copy. The US Department of Justice called such transactions “allegedly illegal” and promised to actively pursue them. The Federal Trade Commission suggests that they will cost US citizens $ 3.5 billion per year.
The US government is looking for other ways to regulate. One of the options is a law that should encourage the production of generic drugs, its essence is that it guarantees six months of monopoly to the manufacturer who is the first to achieve the registration of a drug based on a patent in the United States. However, they often do not have complete freedom, because patent owners began to produce "official" non-patent versions under well-known brands. Large manufacturers claim that authorized independent companies cut prices. Good, but they also undermine the meaning of the six-month bonus and, therefore, the incentive for independent companies to win it.
The Presidents of the European Union are also concerned about this issue. The EU Commission estimated that independent companies start production seven months after the expiration of the patent, such delays cost the consumer more than 3 billion euros per year. The antimonopoly commission spoke out against such transactions; they also did not support all the other methods that large companies use, including filing hundreds of patents for one drug to prevent potential independent competitors. Neil Kroos, EU Commissioner for Antimonopoly Law, said that “something is wrong” in the industry.
Large producers have two excuses: in reality, everything is much more complicated compared to how antitrust organizations describe it, and the fact that the “pay for delay” system is actually more beneficial for the consumer. Yes, indeed, the real picture is ambiguous, it is not the fault of all major manufacturers of medicines, but the second justification is fundamentally wrong.
In the EU, generic drugs were not welcome, unlike America, Europe consists of small markets with different regulations and economic barriers, one of which is “the requirement to register the drug in all EU countries”. Available evidence suggests that a single European patenting system, as well as appropriate judicial procedures, together with the support of leading companies, would increase the number of generic medicines.
Firms selling non-proprietary products often seek access to the market, challenging existing patents, rather than trying to wait for their expiration date to expire. The only patent, and therefore the only problem, could simplify their lives.
American independent companies are also not angels, they are happy to receive money for the postponement of the date of commencement of production. They also state that it is better for the consumer in that it reduces the number of legal inconsistencies, as well as contributes to a more rapid appearance of the drug on the market.
As the latest deals of manufacturers show, it's all nonsense. Some independent manufacturers also agree to delay the release of the start of sales not for the sake of money, but for the promise of the patent owner to delay or cancel the start of their own sales. Such machinations may possibly suit brand owners, as well as manufacturers of unpatented drugs that can disrupt their anger in other ways. But neither those nor others are worried about the financial condition and consumer health.
_________________
Translator's Note
In the original text, the word “generic” is often used, which translates as “patent-free”, I decided that when it is used in combination, the word “company” is better translated together as “independent company”, although I could be wrong .
PS This is my first habrotopik =). Do not judge strictly plz ^ _ ^.
Special thanks to my proofreaders =)
OlegXxl and Stixoplet92
Especially for the Pirate Party of Russia
Authorities must stop using a system that delays the emergence of generic drugs
')
Since at the moment, many governments have difficulty paying their medical bills, they are starting to pay more attention to the prices of medicines. This may seem unfair, given that pharmaceuticals account for only one-fifth of all the costs of medical care, as well as the fact that innovations can fade away if they are not funded. Nevertheless, it is believed that large manufacturers overestimate drug prices too much and suppress independent manufacturers who produce similar drugs cheaper. The governments of Canada and Japan have shown interest in this issue. And this time they really have something to criticize. The most flagrant offense is a transaction, the essence of which is that the patent owner pays independent producers for delaying the production of a cheaper copy. The US Department of Justice called such transactions “allegedly illegal” and promised to actively pursue them. The Federal Trade Commission suggests that they will cost US citizens $ 3.5 billion per year.
The US government is looking for other ways to regulate. One of the options is a law that should encourage the production of generic drugs, its essence is that it guarantees six months of monopoly to the manufacturer who is the first to achieve the registration of a drug based on a patent in the United States. However, they often do not have complete freedom, because patent owners began to produce "official" non-patent versions under well-known brands. Large manufacturers claim that authorized independent companies cut prices. Good, but they also undermine the meaning of the six-month bonus and, therefore, the incentive for independent companies to win it.
The Presidents of the European Union are also concerned about this issue. The EU Commission estimated that independent companies start production seven months after the expiration of the patent, such delays cost the consumer more than 3 billion euros per year. The antimonopoly commission spoke out against such transactions; they also did not support all the other methods that large companies use, including filing hundreds of patents for one drug to prevent potential independent competitors. Neil Kroos, EU Commissioner for Antimonopoly Law, said that “something is wrong” in the industry.
Food for thought
Large producers have two excuses: in reality, everything is much more complicated compared to how antitrust organizations describe it, and the fact that the “pay for delay” system is actually more beneficial for the consumer. Yes, indeed, the real picture is ambiguous, it is not the fault of all major manufacturers of medicines, but the second justification is fundamentally wrong.
In the EU, generic drugs were not welcome, unlike America, Europe consists of small markets with different regulations and economic barriers, one of which is “the requirement to register the drug in all EU countries”. Available evidence suggests that a single European patenting system, as well as appropriate judicial procedures, together with the support of leading companies, would increase the number of generic medicines.
Firms selling non-proprietary products often seek access to the market, challenging existing patents, rather than trying to wait for their expiration date to expire. The only patent, and therefore the only problem, could simplify their lives.
American independent companies are also not angels, they are happy to receive money for the postponement of the date of commencement of production. They also state that it is better for the consumer in that it reduces the number of legal inconsistencies, as well as contributes to a more rapid appearance of the drug on the market.
As the latest deals of manufacturers show, it's all nonsense. Some independent manufacturers also agree to delay the release of the start of sales not for the sake of money, but for the promise of the patent owner to delay or cancel the start of their own sales. Such machinations may possibly suit brand owners, as well as manufacturers of unpatented drugs that can disrupt their anger in other ways. But neither those nor others are worried about the financial condition and consumer health.
_________________
Translator's Note
In the original text, the word “generic” is often used, which translates as “patent-free”, I decided that when it is used in combination, the word “company” is better translated together as “independent company”, although I could be wrong .
PS This is my first habrotopik =). Do not judge strictly plz ^ _ ^.
Special thanks to my proofreaders =)
OlegXxl and Stixoplet92
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/67404/
All Articles