Salinas, CA: Drug Companies Gaming The Market To Keep Stranglehold On Lucrative Brand Name Drugs: Vi
Salinas, CA: Drug Companies Gaming The Market To Keep Stranglehold On Lucrative Brand Name Drugs: View From A Private Duty Caregiver Serving, Carmel, Carmel Valley, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Gilroy, Gonzalez, Greenfield, Hollister, King City, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Salinas, San Juan Bautista, Seaside And Soledad California
Everyone knows that generics are cheaper than brand-name drugs and there are supposed to be strict rules in place so that after a patent expires new competitors enter the market. This allows other companies to manufacture the same drug at a much lower cost. But drug makers often go to great lengths to try to entrench themselves in a lucrative market. The sleeping medication Ambien, for example, generated over $2 billion in revenue in 2006 and, facing a generic competitor, the manufacturer (Sanofi-Aventis) took advantage of its powerful name brand drug to launch Ambien CR. It was the exact same medication as Ambien, but was a time-release tablet and, with a major dose of marketing, in 2007 the "new" drug pulled in more than $750 million in revenue. But in a bizarre twist of events, another pharmaceutical company (Warner Chilcott PLC) is trying to keep its drug on the market without competition by remarketing one of its medications by putting a line or "score" across the exact same drug. The pill already had one score on it but the company added a second, arguing to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) that this will enable those on the pill to easier take it in thirds. If regulators approve the plan, generic versions could be made, but companies would have to change their production plans and it would likely delay the approval and introduction of low-cost generic drugs competing with their product. Warner Chilcott is essentially asking regulators to put competitors through the entire drug approval process for the "new" drug which has two lines on it, even if they have already been approved to make a generic of the "old" drug with one line on it. In the past, drug manufacturers have gone to great lengths to keep a hold on their lucrative markets. But unlike Ambien CR, which was a time-release formula which may be more effective for some patients, this "new" drug is simply the old drug with another line scratched across it. Seniors are facing rising drug costs and I hope the efforts of Warner Chilcott aren't successful. If a precedent like this is set, it's likely to have a ripple effect, with a number of popular meds slightly tweaked at the last moment to stave off competition. Other efforts at delaying generic competitors have been to introduce a cream as an ointment or vice versa, or turning lotions into creams. Although there is nothing wrong with this, it shouldn't keep generic competitors at bay. Competitors with generic versions should be able to go to market with a drug as planned without having a competitor try and game the system by making minor changes which don't alter the chemical composition of the drug. Hopefully, the FDA will not approve the plan set forth by Warner Chilcott. What's wrong with a pill splitter?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204294504576615273524482778.html
Everyone knows that generics are cheaper than brand-name drugs and there are supposed to be strict rules in place so that after a patent expires new competitors enter the market. This allows other companies to manufacture the same drug at a much lower cost. But drug makers often go to great lengths to try to entrench themselves in a lucrative market. The sleeping medication Ambien, for example, generated over $2 billion in revenue in 2006 and, facing a generic competitor, the manufacturer (Sanofi-Aventis) took advantage of its powerful name brand drug to launch Ambien CR. It was the exact same medication as Ambien, but was a time-release tablet and, with a major dose of marketing, in 2007 the "new" drug pulled in more than $750 million in revenue. But in a bizarre twist of events, another pharmaceutical company (Warner Chilcott PLC) is trying to keep its drug on the market without competition by remarketing one of its medications by putting a line or "score" across the exact same drug. The pill already had one score on it but the company added a second, arguing to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) that this will enable those on the pill to easier take it in thirds. If regulators approve the plan, generic versions could be made, but companies would have to change their production plans and it would likely delay the approval and introduction of low-cost generic drugs competing with their product. Warner Chilcott is essentially asking regulators to put competitors through the entire drug approval process for the "new" drug which has two lines on it, even if they have already been approved to make a generic of the "old" drug with one line on it. In the past, drug manufacturers have gone to great lengths to keep a hold on their lucrative markets. But unlike Ambien CR, which was a time-release formula which may be more effective for some patients, this "new" drug is simply the old drug with another line scratched across it. Seniors are facing rising drug costs and I hope the efforts of Warner Chilcott aren't successful. If a precedent like this is set, it's likely to have a ripple effect, with a number of popular meds slightly tweaked at the last moment to stave off competition. Other efforts at delaying generic competitors have been to introduce a cream as an ointment or vice versa, or turning lotions into creams. Although there is nothing wrong with this, it shouldn't keep generic competitors at bay. Competitors with generic versions should be able to go to market with a drug as planned without having a competitor try and game the system by making minor changes which don't alter the chemical composition of the drug. Hopefully, the FDA will not approve the plan set forth by Warner Chilcott. What's wrong with a pill splitter?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204294504576615273524482778.html
Source...