Prosecuting Excessive Pricing of Pharmaceuticals Under Competition Law

Frederick Abbott
{"title":"Prosecuting Excessive Pricing of Pharmaceuticals Under Competition Law","authors":"Frederick Abbott","doi":"10.52214/stlr.v24i2.11627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prosecution of pharmaceutical companies for excessive pricing of products under competition law is now a reality. As recently as a decade ago, such prosecutions were virtually nonexistent. That situation has changed dramatically as competition authorities in Europe and South Africa have pursued a significant number of such prosecutions and have levied substantial fines against the
 investigated parties. While the United States has traditionally led in policing the pharmaceutical market against anticompetitive misconduct, in this specific arena it has fallen behind, principally because federal courts so far have refused to acknowledge excessive pricing as a cause of action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
 
 In a succession of cases European competition authorities have demonstrated concretely the way in which excessive pricing prosecutions may be pursued. This article examines those cases in some detail showing the challenges that competition authorities have faced, and how they have gone about addressing them. The successes in Europe should help put to rest arguments regarding the difficulties in ascertaining how pharmaceutical products are priced, particularly for products no longer covered by patents or regulatory market exclusivity. The South African competition authority is undertaking its second major prosecution of excessive pricing of originator products. The ongoing case involves an essential anticancer medicine the pricing of which has deprived individuals in South Africa of life-saving treatment.
 
 Methodologies for investigating and analyzing abusive pricing are being regularized. This is important because competition authorities around the world should be able to rely on generally accepted standards for pursuing misconduct. This article suggests doctrinal improvements in the form of per se baseline rules for establishing excess with respect to generics, and rule of reason balancing tests for assessing the fairness of pricing practices for originator products and generics not encompassed by per se rules. The continued evolution of excessive pricing doctrine does not depend on these improvements. More important is continuing legal, financial, and political support for the efforts of competition authorities in this area.
 
 Patents, regulatory market exclusivity and other structural features insulate the pharmaceutical market from economic pressures that ordinarily create and recreate an equilibrium that protects consumers. For the pharmaceutical market, there must be a means to redress excessive prices in themselves. Competition law enforcement is an important tool for achieving that redress.
 
","PeriodicalId":87208,"journal":{"name":"The Columbia science and technology law review","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Columbia science and technology law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/stlr.v24i2.11627","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Prosecution of pharmaceutical companies for excessive pricing of products under competition law is now a reality. As recently as a decade ago, such prosecutions were virtually nonexistent. That situation has changed dramatically as competition authorities in Europe and South Africa have pursued a significant number of such prosecutions and have levied substantial fines against the investigated parties. While the United States has traditionally led in policing the pharmaceutical market against anticompetitive misconduct, in this specific arena it has fallen behind, principally because federal courts so far have refused to acknowledge excessive pricing as a cause of action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In a succession of cases European competition authorities have demonstrated concretely the way in which excessive pricing prosecutions may be pursued. This article examines those cases in some detail showing the challenges that competition authorities have faced, and how they have gone about addressing them. The successes in Europe should help put to rest arguments regarding the difficulties in ascertaining how pharmaceutical products are priced, particularly for products no longer covered by patents or regulatory market exclusivity. The South African competition authority is undertaking its second major prosecution of excessive pricing of originator products. The ongoing case involves an essential anticancer medicine the pricing of which has deprived individuals in South Africa of life-saving treatment. Methodologies for investigating and analyzing abusive pricing are being regularized. This is important because competition authorities around the world should be able to rely on generally accepted standards for pursuing misconduct. This article suggests doctrinal improvements in the form of per se baseline rules for establishing excess with respect to generics, and rule of reason balancing tests for assessing the fairness of pricing practices for originator products and generics not encompassed by per se rules. The continued evolution of excessive pricing doctrine does not depend on these improvements. More important is continuing legal, financial, and political support for the efforts of competition authorities in this area. Patents, regulatory market exclusivity and other structural features insulate the pharmaceutical market from economic pressures that ordinarily create and recreate an equilibrium that protects consumers. For the pharmaceutical market, there must be a means to redress excessive prices in themselves. Competition law enforcement is an important tool for achieving that redress.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据竞争法起诉药品定价过高
根据竞争法起诉制药公司定价过高已成为现实。就在十年前,这样的起诉实际上是不存在的。这种情况发生了巨大变化,因为欧洲和南非的竞争监管机构已经提起了大量此类诉讼,并对这些公司征收了巨额罚款。方调查。虽然美国传统上在监管药品市场以打击反竞争不当行为方面处于领先地位,但在这一特定领域,它却落后了,主要是因为联邦法院迄今为止拒绝承认《谢尔曼法》第2条规定的过高定价是诉讼的原因。& # x0D;在一系列案件中,欧洲竞争监管机构具体展示了可能对定价过高提起诉讼的方式。本文详细分析了这些案例,展示了竞争管理机构所面临的挑战,以及它们如何着手解决这些挑战。欧洲的成功应该有助于平息有关难以确定药品定价的争论,尤其是那些不再受专利或监管市场独占权保护的产品。南非竞争管理局正在对原产产品定价过高进行第二次重大起诉。正在进行的案件涉及一种基本的抗癌药物,这种药物的价格剥夺了南非人获得挽救生命的治疗的权利。& # x0D;调查和分析滥用定价的方法正在规范化。这一点很重要,因为世界各地的竞争监管机构应该能够依靠普遍接受的标准来追究不当行为。本文建议在理论上进行改进,其形式是制定关于仿制药的超额规定的本身基线规则,以及评估未包含在本身规则中的原创产品和仿制药定价做法的公平性的理性规则平衡测试。过度定价理论的持续演变并不依赖于这些改进。更重要的是继续在法律、财政和政治上支持竞争管理机构在这一领域的努力。& # x0D;专利、监管市场排他性和其他结构性特征使制药市场免受经济压力的影响,而经济压力通常会创造和重建保护消费者的平衡。对于医药市场来说,必须有一种手段来纠正过高的价格。竞争法的执行是实现这种补救的重要工具。& # x0D;
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prosecuting Excessive Pricing of Pharmaceuticals Under Competition Law Noticing Patents Panoptic Employment Regulation of DeFi Lending A Singular Disclosure Requirement Is Necessary For Patent Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1