Case Study : Monopoly Drugs Versus Generic Drugs

Many other drugs also lose patent protection leading to the creation of substitutes that are cheaper.

Pharmaceutical companies are provided with temporary monopoly rights on the production of new drugs which result in a higher cost on consumers. If competing companies were allowed to produce generic forms of those drugs, consumers will be able to afford those medications even in cases where those consumers have no insurance coverage. The company responsible for developing and inventing the original medication could be offered incentives to invent in the future by either obtaining tax breaks or NIH funding for future research. They could even be offered a percentage of the sales of the generic drugs. Economist Gary S. Becker advocates dropping many FDA requirements that, in his opinion, provide no additional safety measures but rather delay the development of new drugs.[12] Betamethasone, for example, has been part of the standard prenatal care in Europe since the late 1970’s while it got adopted in the U.S. after 1997. On many occasions, the FDA ignores all scientific evidence concerning certain drugs because the manufacturer did not follow their mandated bureaucratic standards.

They have also attacked patent listings in the Food and Drug Administration “Orange Book” and have alleged monopolization through fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office and sham litigation. Yet other cases have condemned distribution agreements as unlawful exclusive dealing. These government actions have led to substantial private class action litigation against the pharmaceutical industry. The FTC has also challenged numerous mergers and acquisitions in the industry over the last decade. One common feature in all of these cases is the need to define a relevant market. In nonmerger cases, the FTC and private plaintiffsgenerally allege narrow markets, limited to a single drug and its generic equivalent in some cases and to generic drugs excluding the bioequivalent “brand-name” drug in other cases. In its merger challenges, on the other hand, the FTC has alleged markets ranging from those based upon a particular chemical compound, to broader markets based upon various drugs’ manner of interaction or dosage form, to still broader markets of all drugs used to treat a disease or condition. In numerous pharmaceutical merger challenges, the government has included in the market not only currently marketed drugs but also other drugs under development, alleging “innovation markets.”

Improvements in health care and life sciences are an important source of gains in health and longevity globally. The development of innovative pharmaceutical products plays a critical role in ensuring these continued gains. To encourage the continued development of new drugs, economic incentives are essential. These incentives are principally provided through direct and indirect government funding, intellectual property laws, and other policies that favor innovation. Without such incentives, private corporations, which bring to market the vast majority of new drugs, would be less able to assume the risks and costs necessary to continue their research and development (R&D). In the United States, government action has focused on creating the environment that would best encourage further innovation and yield a constant flow of new and innovative medicines to the market. The goal has been to ensure that consumers would benefit both from technological breakthroughs and the competition that further innovation generates. The United States also relies on a strong generic pharmaceutical industry to create added competitive pressure to lower drug prices. Recent action by the Administration and Congress has accelerated the flow of generic medicines to the market for precisely that reason. By contrast, in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

2. Patent related and Generic Competition: The developed countries like US and Europe have strong patent protection laws which gives a lot of benefits for the pharmaceutical companies. But, the patent

Under TRIPS, until a pharmaceutical patent is actually granted, a country has no obligation to protect potential prospective rights (during the pendency of the

Pharmaceutical companies also defend the costs because of the patent laws. When a patent expires, a generic drug can be made and sold for lower cost. "Although

Pharmaceutical companies are often able to achieve temporary monopolies from patents granting them the exclusive right to produce and market drug formulations they have developed. These patents are:

Evidently, both the EU and the U.S. enacted special provisions legislative, which extended the pharmaceuticals patents' life. As is the case with America, the Waxman-Hatch Act increased the copyright protection based on name-brand drugs with up to five years, but still it also puts

This industry has monopolized drug distribution to sustain and control high cost of the brand name prescription drugs. These brand name drugs were covered under patent protections, which stipulate that only that pharmaceutical company awarded coverage can manufacture, market and eventually profit from that specific drug. As long as the patent protections exist, these drugs cannot be sold as generic brands by other companies. The regulations outlined in the PPACA, however, challenged these patents to allow a more competitive field, thus dropping the cost of drugs and sales of brand named prescriptions. This lowered the revenue of high cost drugs and opened accessibility for lower cost options. The PPACA continued to further impose regulations, even on biologic pharmaceutical products. These products, which are versions of the original biologic products “that have the same mechanism of action in the body and are used for the same clinical indication but are not identical to the original product (variously referred to as the reference, pioneer, or innovator product)” (Health Policy Brief, 2013, para 5).  The reform also included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), which encourages to allow competition, as the regulation of the patent protections, in the market for biologic

In 1970 the government passed two new regulations that has effect on the pharmaceutical industry. “The India Patent Act prohibited

The Pfizer case provides an introduction to external analysis. The case highlights the pharmaceutical industry, which has enjoyed extraordinary long-run profitability. The case also demonstrates how broad changes in broad environmental factors (i.e. demographics, technology, culture, etc.) have an impact on industry competition. The case is not especially complex, so it is not overwhelming as a first case.

While this case is literally full of negative aspects, we will only focus on the main points for both arguments. Pharmaceutical companies want to be sure that the products they spend years and millions of dollars to create are not easily reproduced and sold at discount prices. The profits pharmaceuticals make of their patented products are supposed to refinance new research. So taking away their exclusive distribution rights and allowing other manufacturers to just copy the product and sell it at

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

The concept of product patent for pharmaceutical products is likely to make life saving medicine beyond the reach of the poor and deprived section of the society around the world.