February 16, 2014 |
WASHINGTON - Companies that make generic drugs, the medications most Americans buy, are fighting to kill a proposed federal regulation that would require them for the first time to warn patients of all the known health risks of each drug they sell. The proposed rule change by the Food and Drug Administration "would be nothing short of catastrophic," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Assn., an industry trade group. It could raise healthcare costs and "create dangerous confusion" for doctors and patients, he said.
October 1, 2013 |
Merck & Co., the second-largest drug maker by sales, said Tuesday it will lay off 8,500 employees in a strategy overhaul to revamp its research and development efforts. That's on top of a previous announcement that the Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based company would lay off 7,500 workers. The combined cuts amount to 20% of the company's global workforce. In a statement, the drug company said the strategy is expected to save $2.5 billion by the end of 2015; 40% of those savings would be realized by the end of next year.
July 8, 2013 |
In a recent post , I noted the Catch-22 that the Supreme Court insists Congress created with its fast-track approvals for generic drugs. Those who are injured by a brand-name drug can win compensation from the manufacturer if they can show the drug was unreasonably dangerous or that its warning label didn't disclose the risks properly. But those injured by a generic medicine can't hold the manufacturer liable as long as the drug maker used the same active ingredients and displayed the same warnings as the brand-name drug.
June 18, 2013 |
WASHINGTON - A brand-name drug maker can be sued for violating antitrust laws if it agrees to pay a potential competitor to delay selling a generic version, the Supreme Court ruled. The 5-3 decision is expected to result in lower prescription drug prices for consumers, advocates said. The Federal Trade Commission, which has pursued suits against the drug makers, estimated that the so-called pay-for-delay deals cost consumers and health plans $3.5 billion a year. The ruling sends a warning to drug makers that try to deter generic rivals from entering the market by settling potential patent claims, paying the competitors to stay out of the market for years more.
June 17, 2013 |
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that brand-name drug makers can be sued for violating the antitrust laws if they make a deal that pays a potential competitor to put off selling a generic version. The 5-3 decision is likely to benefit consumers with lower prices. The Federal Trade Commission, which has pursued suits against the drug makers, estimated these so-called “pay for delay” deals cost consumers and health plans $3.5 billion a year. The ruling is likely to send a warning to drug makers who wish to deter generic rivals from entering the market.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 29, 2013 |
Despite the state Senate's failure to pass a bill Tuesday that would have improved a prescription-drug monitoring program, a spokesman for Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris said the state's top law enforcement official was hopeful that the measure would succeed this week. The bill would create a steady financing for CURES, as the state's prescription drug monitoring program is known, by raising licensing fees on pharmacists and on doctors and other prescribers. The program is seen as key to preventing prescription-drug addiction and overdoses by identifying doctor-shopping patients an the physicians who cater to them.