Sharing, samples, and generics: an antitrust framework.

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2017-01-01
Michael A Carrier
{"title":"Sharing, samples, and generics: an antitrust framework.","authors":"Michael A Carrier","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rising drug prices are in the news. By increasing price, drug companies have placed vital, even life-saving, medicines out of the reach of consumers. In a recent development, brand firms have prevented generics even from entering the market. The ruse for this strategy involves risk-management programs known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (\"REMS\"). Pursuant to legislation enacted in 2007, the FDA requires REMS when a drug's risks (such as death or injury) outweigh its rewards. Brands have used this regime, intended to bring drugs to the market, to block generic competition. Regulations such as the federal Hatch-Waxman Act and state substitution laws foster widespread generic competition. But these regimes can only be effectuated through generic entry. And that entry can take place only if a generic can use a brand's sample to show that its product is equivalent. More than 100 generic firms have complained that they have not been able to access needed samples. One study of 40 drugs subject to restricted access programs found that generics' inability to enter cost more than $5 billion a year. Brand firms have contended that antitrust law does not compel them to deal with their competitors and have highlighted concerns related to safety and product liability in justifying their refusals. This Article rebuts these claims. It highlights the importance of samples in the regulatory regime and the FDA's inability to address the issue. It shows how a sharing requirement in this setting is consistent with Supreme Court caselaw. And it demonstrates that the brands' behavior fails the defendant-friendly \"no economic sense\" test because the conduct literally makes no sense other than by harming generics. Brands' denial of samples offers a textbook case of monopolization. In the universe of pharmaceutical antitrust behavior, other conduct--such as \"pay for delay\" settlements between brands and generics and \"product hopping\" from one drug to a slightly modified version--has received the lion's share of attention. But sample denials are overdue for antitrust scrutiny. This Article fills this gap. Given the failure of Congress and the FDA to remedy the issue, antitrust can play a crucial role in ensuring generic access to samples, affirming a linchpin of the pharmaceutical regime.</p>","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"1-64"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rising drug prices are in the news. By increasing price, drug companies have placed vital, even life-saving, medicines out of the reach of consumers. In a recent development, brand firms have prevented generics even from entering the market. The ruse for this strategy involves risk-management programs known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies ("REMS"). Pursuant to legislation enacted in 2007, the FDA requires REMS when a drug's risks (such as death or injury) outweigh its rewards. Brands have used this regime, intended to bring drugs to the market, to block generic competition. Regulations such as the federal Hatch-Waxman Act and state substitution laws foster widespread generic competition. But these regimes can only be effectuated through generic entry. And that entry can take place only if a generic can use a brand's sample to show that its product is equivalent. More than 100 generic firms have complained that they have not been able to access needed samples. One study of 40 drugs subject to restricted access programs found that generics' inability to enter cost more than $5 billion a year. Brand firms have contended that antitrust law does not compel them to deal with their competitors and have highlighted concerns related to safety and product liability in justifying their refusals. This Article rebuts these claims. It highlights the importance of samples in the regulatory regime and the FDA's inability to address the issue. It shows how a sharing requirement in this setting is consistent with Supreme Court caselaw. And it demonstrates that the brands' behavior fails the defendant-friendly "no economic sense" test because the conduct literally makes no sense other than by harming generics. Brands' denial of samples offers a textbook case of monopolization. In the universe of pharmaceutical antitrust behavior, other conduct--such as "pay for delay" settlements between brands and generics and "product hopping" from one drug to a slightly modified version--has received the lion's share of attention. But sample denials are overdue for antitrust scrutiny. This Article fills this gap. Given the failure of Congress and the FDA to remedy the issue, antitrust can play a crucial role in ensuring generic access to samples, affirming a linchpin of the pharmaceutical regime.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
共享、样本和仿制药:一个反垄断框架。
不断上涨的药品价格成为新闻。制药公司通过提高价格,使消费者无法获得至关重要甚至挽救生命的药品。在最近的发展中,品牌公司甚至阻止仿制药进入市场。该策略的策略涉及风险管理程序,即风险评估和缓解策略(REMS)。根据2007年颁布的法律,当一种药物的风险(如死亡或伤害)超过其回报时,FDA要求REMS。各大品牌利用这一机制,旨在将药品推向市场,以阻止仿制药竞争。联邦哈奇-韦克斯曼法案和州替代法等法规促进了广泛的仿制药竞争。但这些制度只能通过通用入境来实现。只有当仿制药可以使用品牌的样品来证明其产品是等效的,才能进入这一行列。100多家仿制药公司抱怨说,他们无法获得所需的样品。一项针对40种受准入限制项目限制的药物的研究发现,仿制药无法进入市场每年造成的损失超过50亿美元。品牌公司争辩说,反垄断法并没有强迫他们与竞争对手打交道,并强调了与安全和产品责任有关的担忧,以证明他们拒绝的理由。本文驳斥了这些说法。它突出了样品在监管制度中的重要性,以及FDA无法解决这一问题。它显示了这种情况下的共享要求如何与最高法院判例法相一致。而且它表明,品牌的行为未能通过被告友好的“没有经济意义”测试,因为除了损害仿制药之外,这些行为实际上没有任何意义。品牌拒绝提供样品提供了教科书式的垄断案例。在制药行业的反垄断行为中,其他行为——比如品牌和仿制药之间的“延迟付款”和解,以及从一种药物到稍微修改的药物之间的“产品切换”——受到了最多的关注。但反垄断审查早该对样本予以否认了。本文填补了这一空白。鉴于国会和FDA未能纠正这一问题,反垄断可以在确保仿制药获得样本方面发挥关键作用,确认制药制度的关键。
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1915, the Cornell Law Review is a student-run and student-edited journal that strives to publish novel scholarship that will have an immediate and lasting impact on the legal community. The Cornell Law Review publishes six issues annually consisting of articles, essays, book reviews, and student notes.
期刊最新文献
The Health Security Act: coercion and distrust for the market. Laws Intentionally Favoring Mainstream Religions: An Unhelpful Comparison to Race The Role of History in Constitutional Interpretation: A Case Study Making state civil procedure Stricken: the Need for Positive Statutory Law to Prevent Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes of Disabled Jurors.
×
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