SCOTUS agrees to hear 'pay-for-delay' drug case

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the legality of drug companies paying their generic-making counterparts to keep generic drugs -- in this case, a testosterone gel -- off the market.

Politico: Supreme Court Takes Up Case On Generic Drugs
The Supreme Court will take up "pay for delay" -- the multibillion-dollar dispute over whether brand-name drug makers should be able to pay generic drug companies for agreeing to delay putting cheaper versions on the market (Norman, 12/10).

Modern Healthcare: Supreme Court Slates Generic Drug 'Pay-For-Delay' Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a "pay-for-delay" case that has the Federal Trade Commission accusing generic drugmakers of violating competition laws by agreeing to accept $42 million in annual payments in exchange for not selling generic versions of a more-expensive brand-name testosterone gel. The FTC says the companies -- lead respondent Watson Pharmaceuticals, along with Paddock Laboratories, Par Pharmaceutical Cos. and Abbott Laboratories subsidiary Solvay Pharmaceuticals -- conspired illegally to keep cheaper drugs off the market, to the detriment of consumers of the brand-name drug. The companies, meanwhile, say their actions were legal and immune from FTC scrutiny. However, they did not oppose a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, because they said differing interpretations of federal law had led to split legal reasoning in various U.S. circuits on a controversy of national significance (Carlson, 12/8).

Reuters: Supreme Court To Hear "Pay-For-Delay" Drug Case
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether brand-name drug companies may pay money to generic drug rivals to keep their lower-priced products off the market, a practice estimated to cost consumers and the government billions of dollars each year. The arrangements, known as "pay-for-delay" or "reverse payments," have for more than a decade vexed antitrust enforcers, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which have been stung until recently by a series of court decisions allowing such practices (Stempel, 12/7).


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.orgThis article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

 

Advertisement

Comments

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.
Post a new comment
Post
You might also like... ×
Direct-to-consumer ‘low-T’ medication advertising increases prescriptions but may not improve health