The NEJM article specifically notes that: “….as currently fashioned, the biosimilar legislation would have no value, because it would create a pathway that would scarcely be used. Innovators would not get the benefit of the exclusivity provision, and the public would not get the benefit of the enhanced price competition that would result from increasing the number of competitors.” In addition to the NEJM article, government agencies, respected thought-leaders, and the Administration have all weighed in that 12 years of exclusivity is excessive. - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in a major report earlier this year that patents for biologic products already provide enough incentives for innovation and that additional periods of exclusivity would “not spur the creation of a new biologic drug or indication” and “imperils” the benefits of the approval process. - In June, the White House sent a letter to Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman which stated that seven years of exclusivity is a “generous compromise between what the FTC research has concluded and what the pharmaceutical industry has advocated.” - Former U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas stated this week that 12 years of exclusivity for innovator biologics is “outrageous” and that policymakers should work to lower the number during any conference committee negotiations. Source
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association
No related posts.
