Obama budget targets brand name medicines

Related Topics

Stickers to be placed on prescription medication bottles sit in a shelf at a pharmacy in New York December 23, 2009. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Stickers to be placed on prescription medication bottles sit in a shelf at a pharmacy in New York December 23, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson

WASHINGTON | Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:17pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Big pharmaceutical companies could face increased competition from generic drugmakers under two proposals put forth by the Obama administration on Monday despite earlier savings extracted from drugmakers as part of last year's healthcare law.

President Barack Obama, as part of his 2012 budget proposal, called for cutting the number of years drugmakers could exclusively market brand-name biologic drugs to 7 years from 12.

He also set his sights on ending controversial "pay-for-delay" deals that affect traditional, chemical drugs by giving the U.S. Federal Trade Commission power to block them. Under such pacts, brand-name and generic drugmakers settle patent challenges with payoffs that delay lower-cost rivals from reaching the market.

The proposals face a tough challenge of getting through the divided Congress, but could alter the landscape for consumers' access to cheaper medicines.

They quickly drew industry protests.

While branded and generic drugmakers are divided over the biologics issue, "both the brand and generic drug industries will fight tooth and nail to preserve pay-to-delay settlements which provide substantial benefit to the industry," Bernstein analyst Aaron "Ronny" Gal said in a research note.

Still, they are unlikely to deliver a huge overall blow to the $890 billion global drug industry in which companies such as Pfizer Inc - and Merck & Co Inc - can see at least $1 billion a year in revenue from just one blockbuster medicine.

The Obama administration is turning to drugmakers to help squeeze out some savings to help reduce the deficit and cover other health initiatives such as the implementation of the health law passed last March that included about $80 billion in savings negotiated with brand name companies.

U.S. Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was unapologetic about the extra savings from industry, and saying the administration wants the best outcomes for patients. "This is a move in that direction," she told reporters.

The two proposals aimed at getting cheaper, generic medicines to the U.S. market would together save about $11 billion over 10 years.

The proposal impacting brand-name biologics is a more dramatic version of a similar provision included in the health law in which brand-name drugmakers won 12 years of exclusive sales under a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process to allow generic versions of biologics.

Such medicines treat conditions ranging from cancer to arthritis and are made from proteins, which can make them more complex to manufacture and more costly.

Generic drugmakers had fought for a shorter period of exclusivity, and on Monday the administration said 12-years of protection harms consumer access to much needed drugs.

Its seven-year proposal "strikes a balance between promoting affordable access to medication while at the same time encouraging innovation to develop needed therapies," the White House said in budget documents.

The measure would start to see savings of $80 million starting in 2015 and altogether could save $2.3 billion from 2012 to 2021, it estimated.

The "pay-for-delay" plan would save $540 million starting in fiscal 2012 and nearly $8.8 billion through 2021, it added.

In a statement, branded industry group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said both measures would discourage industry investment into research and development and could stifle new medicines.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization said reducing exclusivity to 7 years would prevent biotech firms from recouping their investments. Meanwhile, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association applauded the 7-year biogeneric plan but called Obama's move on "pay for delay" misguided.

Obama's budget also renewed the call for generic drugmakers to pay fees for the FDA to review new generic medicines.

Other proposed fees would cover FDA reinspections of drug and device companies after manufacturing problems are uncovered. Hospitals and others participating in an outpatient drug pricing program known as 340B are also targeted.

Additionally, the administration calls for food safety industry fees starting in 2013 and pledged to work with Congress to enact them.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (10)
wrote:
To get one new drug approved in the Market, how many molecules should the pharmceutical industry test before and lose heavy money because tests conducted failed to reach their objectives?

How fast the pharmaceutical industry progressed in the last 50 years?

Should you deprive the Health industry from making profit means that many firms would go bankrupt and many potential drugs for severe illness like(Alzheimer, cancer, diabetes etc..) would never see life;

Is Mr Obama so short-sighted and did the promise of change meant pulling the world backwards denying it from the fast development in medicine human being was rightfully yearning?

Americans should altogether oppose Mr Obama in tempering on what most precious they have got “their health”

Feb 15, 2011 11:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
jrj90620 wrote:
Try going after the real greed.Hospitals and doctors.Charging thousands of Dollars an hour for minor procedures puts them at the top of the list for ripping off the customer.But they are likely off limits and in that saint category where they put teachers,firemen and police.All people mentioned have one thing in common.Most are paid by third parties so the customer isn’t seeing the ripoff and therefore doesn’t care what they get.We get this nonsense of blaming the messenger,the drug and insurance companies.

Feb 15, 2011 1:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mattk wrote:
Obama again demonstrates his ability to live and ‘breath’ in a vacuum. I am not happy about some of the very high priced pharmaceautical meds, but I do understand the incredibly low odds and incredibly high investment required to get even a single ‘blockbuster drug’ to market. A company may spend hundreds of millions on a single medication and billions if you count all the failures that never make it. All this must be taken into account. Once you do the math, you realize that despite the high profits associated with a single big winner, 7 years is far to short to recuperate sufficent investment to make it worthwhile to repeat the process and give the public better drugs. If Obama does not think we need to develop any more medications, then this is a good idea. If he thinks (I really doubt he does) we might need one or two more drugs for the few diseases out there that might be affected, then this is an idiotic, politically motivated, free of a brain decision or proposal.

Feb 15, 2011 1:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.