Competition Within The U.s. Pharmaceutical Industry

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

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

If congress would focus on making generic drugs available the cost of prescriptions would not be as high, and Americans could save approximately $35 billion during the next decade. Compared to $72 a month for brand name drugs, generic versions average $17 a month or 25 to 89 percent lower. Under current legislation original manufacturers of a drug may file multiple lawsuits to prevent other companies from producing a generic version of their drug after the patent runs out. Each lawsuit that is filed delays the production of the generic version by 30 months. If the new bill is passed only one lawsuit will be allowed which would speed the production of generic drugs. The proposed law would also decrease the time it

Recently, there had been a controversy over the rise in pharmaceutical costs involving the EpiPen in the United States. The EpiPen, also known as adrenaline/epinephrine, is a widely used injection that is used to treat allergic reactions. This generic drug has been available for many years. The EpiPen controversy is a prime example of how monopoly

Federal antitrust enforcers are investigating whether a multinational pharmaceutical company has attempted to minimize the impact of generic competition to one of its most profitable prescription drugs. This antidepressant drug is the company 's best seller, with sales last year of $2.11 billion, representing a 22% increase from the year before. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is conducting an investigation to determine whether the company engaged in activities to prevent generic alternatives to the prescription drug from entering the market. Specifically, the FTC is challenging a practice among brand-name and generic drug manufacturers to agree to

So companies that are about to face that competition have big incentives to delay the entry of new generics to the market -- and to erect obstacles to switching to the cheaper upstarts. Even a few months' delay in a generic's entry can salvage billions in revenue for the makers of a blockbuster pioneer

The owner of a patent covering a manufacturing method for a multiple sclerosis drug brought an action against marketers of a generic version of the drug, alleging infringement. The marketers filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity.

Pharmacy retailers once sued Pfizer for allegedly conspiring with generic drug manufacturers to delay the launch of their cheaper generic drugs. However, the FDA’s “user fees” systematically generated similar results. Consumers were punished routinely with higher priced prescription drugs because generic drug companies couldn’t pay “user fees” until 2012. Consequently, the approval process generally took

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

In pharmaceutical industry, the end user of the product (patient) is different from the influencer (doctor) influencing his decisions. This is a unique feature of pharmaceutical industry. Consumer/Patient behavior in India suggests that he will buy whatever medicine is prescribed by his doctor or physician. Therefore we can say that doctors influence the buying power of buyers. In branded market like India patients/pharmacists cannot usually substitute

Patent indirect infringement，as the name implies，is opposite to patent direct infringement. Generally, the conception of patent indirect infringement is to meet the need of pantent protection. It expands the protection domain of the patent right to the no-patented products, improves patent protection’s horizontal and provides sufficient legal protection for patentees.

In recent years there has been much discussion both within Australia and internationally on the extent to which countries benefit from international trade agreements. In this case study we aim to focus on the global context of the pharmaceutical industry, in particular the effect of governmental intervention through the use of international trade agreements, highlighting the problematic patent system and how it affects the market place both internationally and domestically.

Pharmaceutical products are the key element of health systems that helps the community. Despite pharmaceutical being a huge multi-billion dollar industry. This element of governance describes the negative and positive sides of the pharmaceutical industrial parameters.