- Ask Stacy: Should I Borrow From My Retirement Account to Pay Debts?
- Are You Wasting Your Money Buying Organic Food?
- Get Your Drink On for Cheap in These Cities
- Obama Makes Government Credit Cards Safer
- Apple Pay Begins: What You Need to Know
- 20 Ways (and 30 Apps) to Make Your Smartphone Pay for Itself
- 7 Reasons Why Your Debt Repayment Plan Isn’t Working
- 10 Reports Your Car Insurance Company Pulls About You
Last week the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in two cases about gay marriage. While that drew a lot of attention, whatever the justices decide won’t have much direct effect on you unless you’re gay, or have a strong opinion on the subject.
That’s not true of another big case, this one about generic drugs. As NPR reports, the court also has to decide whether or not brand-name drug makers can continue their “pay to delay” schemes.
Over the past decade it’s become more common for brand-name companies to give their generic competition millions of dollars to stay off the market. As we’ve written before, the FDA already grants years of exclusivity to new drugs, which get heavily promoted and entrenched before cheaper copies can enter the market. But even after they can debut, big brands extend their monopoly through legal settlements with the generic brands.
Brand-name drug maker Solvay tweaked the formula for a prescription testosterone gel (AndroGel) whose patent had expired long ago; they figured they could make it just different enough to get a new patent and block competition. Generic competitors challenged it, and one of them was prepared to launch a product that cost one-sixth of Solvay’s. So Solvay offered the generics a combined $42 million a year to back off.
They said sure, we’ll make more money that way – fine. Business as usual, done deal. How’d this wind up in the Supreme Court? Because the Federal Trade Commission stepped in and said it’s not right.
So the government is now making the case that generics are purposely giving up in legal battles and keeping cheaper options out of consumer hands because it’s more profitable for them to do so. If the justices ultimately agree, it could mean cheaper healthcare for many of us.