![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
capri0mniHere it is:
Dear Editor:
In the fall of 2000, my doctor prescribed new asthma drug for me. It worked wonders. For the first time in years, I could breathe freely. I was thrilled, even though it cost close to $90 for a month's supply. I trusted that the price would eventually come down. Instead, the price has risen to over $120. Air is not free if you have respriratory disease.
It would save me (and the federal government) a lot of money if this drug were available as a generic. That's why, way back in 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act. This law was designed to limit the amount of time brand-name drug companies can keep generic drugs off the market (to five years), and to make it easier for generic companies to bring less expensive, but equally safe and effective versions to market. But the law was full of loopholes, including one that allowed brand-name companies to file patent infringement lawsuits against makers of generic drugs -- even when they knew they'd never win. Winning was never their goal -- keeping cheaper competition out of the marketplace was.
In the summer of 2002, Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards co-sponsered a Senate bill (S812) that would have put much stricter limits on these lawsuits. With Edwards' help, the bill passed with strong bipartisan support, 78 to 21, and won praise from such organizations as Consumers' Union. But, thanks in part to lobbyists from the brand-name pharmaceutical companies, the bill died in the House.
Months later, Bush implemented own set of regulations aimed at shortening the time it takes for generic drugs to come to market. Unlike the Senate bill, however, the Administration's plan places no limits on when a brand-name company can file for patent protection, putting the release of generic drugs on hold indefinitely. And the current Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, which Bush touts as a great success, doesn't allow the government to negotiate for lower drug prices, leaving taxpayers and workers to foot the bill -- paying whatever price the drug companies demand.
Spokesmen for the brand-name pharmaceutical industry insist that high prices, and policies that keep generic drugs off the market provide incentives for research and the creation of new drugs. But where's the the incentive to take risks on new drugs when companies can make as much money as they want on products already in the market, for as long as they want?
Sincerely,
Ann Magill,
Chesapeake
I was originally going to include a list of websites where I got my information, but decided against it. This is a (short) editorial piece -- not a research paper, even if I did do a lot of research to back up what I say, thankyouverymuch.
Dear Editor:
In the fall of 2000, my doctor prescribed new asthma drug for me. It worked wonders. For the first time in years, I could breathe freely. I was thrilled, even though it cost close to $90 for a month's supply. I trusted that the price would eventually come down. Instead, the price has risen to over $120. Air is not free if you have respriratory disease.
It would save me (and the federal government) a lot of money if this drug were available as a generic. That's why, way back in 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act. This law was designed to limit the amount of time brand-name drug companies can keep generic drugs off the market (to five years), and to make it easier for generic companies to bring less expensive, but equally safe and effective versions to market. But the law was full of loopholes, including one that allowed brand-name companies to file patent infringement lawsuits against makers of generic drugs -- even when they knew they'd never win. Winning was never their goal -- keeping cheaper competition out of the marketplace was.
In the summer of 2002, Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards co-sponsered a Senate bill (S812) that would have put much stricter limits on these lawsuits. With Edwards' help, the bill passed with strong bipartisan support, 78 to 21, and won praise from such organizations as Consumers' Union. But, thanks in part to lobbyists from the brand-name pharmaceutical companies, the bill died in the House.
Months later, Bush implemented own set of regulations aimed at shortening the time it takes for generic drugs to come to market. Unlike the Senate bill, however, the Administration's plan places no limits on when a brand-name company can file for patent protection, putting the release of generic drugs on hold indefinitely. And the current Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, which Bush touts as a great success, doesn't allow the government to negotiate for lower drug prices, leaving taxpayers and workers to foot the bill -- paying whatever price the drug companies demand.
Spokesmen for the brand-name pharmaceutical industry insist that high prices, and policies that keep generic drugs off the market provide incentives for research and the creation of new drugs. But where's the the incentive to take risks on new drugs when companies can make as much money as they want on products already in the market, for as long as they want?
Sincerely,
Ann Magill,
Chesapeake
I was originally going to include a list of websites where I got my information, but decided against it. This is a (short) editorial piece -- not a research paper, even if I did do a lot of research to back up what I say, thankyouverymuch.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-17 03:47 am (UTC)I'm also increasingly grateful for the NHS.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-17 08:50 am (UTC)Thank you. Though I just now noticed that some words and a comma or two is missing.
I'm also increasingly grateful for the NHS.
I lust for anything resembling an NHS... but I'm not holding my breath for anything like that to appear in the United States. Too many people still have too great a fear of Communism.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-17 04:30 am (UTC)Bloody fantastic.
We've got generic drugs on the market now but the prices are still ridiculous, especially for antidepressants. Grah.
*hugs*
Date: 2004-09-17 09:00 am (UTC)This allows the drug companies to argue that they serve a small niche market -- justifying higher prices.