4 ms·

How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Why is a 1970s technology still under patent? Patents are supposed to allow recoupi

How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Why is a 1970s technology still under patent? Patents are supposed to allow recouping of R & D costs, not grant an effectively permanent monopoly that can be sold over and over again until someone greedy enough does the inevitable – if we grant that sort of long-lived monopoly, what else can we possibly expect to happen? Reform the broken patent system and this problem vanishes due to natural competition. This patent reform isn't even a hard one: stop allowing patents to get extended indefinitely (with or without minor modifications).

pravda 10y ago
>How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Because there is no patent here. That is why.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  Patents do play a role here, though not the largest role. Both Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz were sued when for patent infringement when they announced plans to introduce competitors to Epipen. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-26/mylan-pfizer-announce-epinephrine-pen-settlement-with-teva-1- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-26/mylan-pfi... [2] http://www.law360.com/articles/181459/king-pharma-sues-sandoz-over-generic-epipen http://www.law360.com/articles/181459/king-pharma-sues-sando...
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    They were, if I understand the background correctly, trying to make a workalike competitor, which King/Mylan asserts they cannot do without violating a patent on the current EpiPen injector. The only thing stopping them from making a non-workalike is getting doctors to prescribe it instead of EpiPen, since pharmacies can't autosubstitute in that case.
    - shanacarp 10y ago
      Why does workalike matter?
      - vonmoltke 10y ago
        The various auto injectors work slightly differently. Rightly or wrongly the FDA expects doctors to instruct their patients in the specific auto injector they prescribe. This prevents pharmacies from subbing out other brands unless they are functionally identical.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
If no one is making a generic, or more to the point doctors are prescribing "EpiPen" rather than "epinephrine autoinjector" being out of patent won't help. In the UK doctors had to switch to prescribing generics I think as far back as the 80s. Brands are now only prescribed, with a few exceptions, when it's something new enough to not have a generic yet. Before that lots of things were often prescribed by brand without good reason.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  My experience in the US is that doctors prescribe drugs with generic alternatives anytime they can. I'm not sure if I've ever even taken a branded prescription pill.
  - chapium 10y ago
    Same experience here. Usually a name brand is mentioned as well, which I always chuckle at.
  - importantbrian 10y ago
    Yeah, my old doctor would always prescribe generics, and if he knew you were hard up and might not even be able to afford the generics he would try to get samples from the reps anytime he could and just give them to you.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 10y ago
    Furthermore, even if the doctor writes the brand name drug on the prescription in the US and in Canada the pharmacist can substitute the generic, unless the doctor explicitly says no substitutions on the prescription.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Doctors in the US are reimbursed by Medicare/Medicaid and private insurances based on the rates of generics they prescribe. They look at each type of doc (Oncologists obviously use more Brand Name drugs than pediatricians) and make sure that every doctor falls in a tight band with incentives to 'beat' the number. Most hospitals have specific formularies tilted toward generics as well, if a doctor writes "Tylenol" for a patient, they're given generic acetaminophen. More interesting is that if a doctor writes a script for something like a Brand Name statin, the formulary will auto-substitute for the hospital's drug of choice, now typically generic Lipitor.
rayiner 10y ago
> How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Why is a 1970s technology still under patent? Because the 1970s technology isn't patented. And patents can't get "extended indefinitely." Even if you get a patent for an improvement to a previous patented design, the previous design receives no protection once the patent expires.
SubiculumCode 10y ago
I attended a recent talk of a leader in bringing drugs to market (not naming names). The current trend in pharma is moving away from R&D to S&D. i.e. Search and Develop. They search for promising molecules developed by startups or by government, then develop that into a final product manufacturing process. Most of the research drug failures are committed by third parties and do not cost big pharma anything...shoukd not contribute to the cost of drugs
- shanacarp 10y ago
  Very true, and radically underdiscussed as an issue. Part of me really wants to know if it is Actually Cheaper for BigPharmaCo to offset research costs to university/government/startups and then do a Merger/Acquisition to get the promising drug past a certain phase (what have you) vs costs to do research in house. Is lawyering and banking the process to get a drug to market BEFORE final approval really that much cheaper, or is this an accounting slight of hand issue? What is the actual cost minus marketing to develop a drug and bring it to market that created this situation. Furthermore, what is the cost of marketing on the books for drug companies that also would drive R&D into third parties. Marketing costs are really not cheap - and they have been rising, especially as more prescription drugs are advertised to consumers. How much of this cost is also driving cost cutting/offset of risk? (especially wondering since these issues appear appears the recall + no more manufacturing of Avui-Q. The auto-injector issues that caused the recall were untraceable/not replicatable at the Sanofi factory - and seem to be based on descriptions user error driven - and lower than the user error/failure rate of EpiPen. Meanwhile, Sanofi isn't the inventor - Kaléo/pair of brother founders is/are, and they brought nearly the exact same injector technology to market by themselves for heroin overdose. Sanofi just licensed the technology - and in the wake of the recall, decided to forfeit the license. I'm wondering how much of that deal's provisions killed the Auvi-Q, since it appears the issues behind the injector are long term fixable and profitable)

pravda 10y ago

>How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Because there is no patent here. That is why.

bradleyjg 10y ago
Patents do play a role here, though not the largest role. Both Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sandoz were sued when for patent infringement when they announced plans to introduce competitors to Epipen. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-26/mylan-pfizer-announce-epinephrine-pen-settlement-with-teva-1- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-26/mylan-pfi... [2] http://www.law360.com/articles/181459/king-pharma-sues-sandoz-over-generic-epipen http://www.law360.com/articles/181459/king-pharma-sues-sando...
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  They were, if I understand the background correctly, trying to make a workalike competitor, which King/Mylan asserts they cannot do without violating a patent on the current EpiPen injector. The only thing stopping them from making a non-workalike is getting doctors to prescribe it instead of EpiPen, since pharmacies can't autosubstitute in that case.
  - shanacarp 10y ago
    Why does workalike matter?
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      The various auto injectors work slightly differently. Rightly or wrongly the FDA expects doctors to instruct their patients in the specific auto injector they prescribe. This prevents pharmacies from subbing out other brands unless they are functionally identical.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

If no one is making a generic, or more to the point doctors are prescribing "EpiPen" rather than "epinephrine autoinjector" being out of patent won't help. In the UK doctors had to switch to prescribing generics I think as far back as the 80s. Brands are now only prescribed, with a few exceptions, when it's something new enough to not have a generic yet. Before that lots of things were often prescribed by brand without good reason.

maxerickson 10y ago
My experience in the US is that doctors prescribe drugs with generic alternatives anytime they can. I'm not sure if I've ever even taken a branded prescription pill.
- chapium 10y ago
  Same experience here. Usually a name brand is mentioned as well, which I always chuckle at.
- importantbrian 10y ago
  Yeah, my old doctor would always prescribe generics, and if he knew you were hard up and might not even be able to afford the generics he would try to get samples from the reps anytime he could and just give them to you.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 10y ago
  Furthermore, even if the doctor writes the brand name drug on the prescription in the US and in Canada the pharmacist can substitute the generic, unless the doctor explicitly says no substitutions on the prescription.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Doctors in the US are reimbursed by Medicare/Medicaid and private insurances based on the rates of generics they prescribe. They look at each type of doc (Oncologists obviously use more Brand Name drugs than pediatricians) and make sure that every doctor falls in a tight band with incentives to 'beat' the number. Most hospitals have specific formularies tilted toward generics as well, if a doctor writes "Tylenol" for a patient, they're given generic acetaminophen. More interesting is that if a doctor writes a script for something like a Brand Name statin, the formulary will auto-substitute for the hospital's drug of choice, now typically generic Lipitor.

rayiner 10y ago

> How can any article about this issue not mention the word "patent" anywhere? Why is a 1970s technology still under patent? Because the 1970s technology isn't patented. And patents can't get "extended indefinitely." Even if you get a patent for an improvement to a previous patented design, the previous design receives no protection once the patent expires.

SubiculumCode 10y ago

I attended a recent talk of a leader in bringing drugs to market (not naming names). The current trend in pharma is moving away from R&D to S&D. i.e. Search and Develop. They search for promising molecules developed by startups or by government, then develop that into a final product manufacturing process. Most of the research drug failures are committed by third parties and do not cost big pharma anything...shoukd not contribute to the cost of drugs

shanacarp 10y ago
Very true, and radically underdiscussed as an issue. Part of me really wants to know if it is Actually Cheaper for BigPharmaCo to offset research costs to university/government/startups and then do a Merger/Acquisition to get the promising drug past a certain phase (what have you) vs costs to do research in house. Is lawyering and banking the process to get a drug to market BEFORE final approval really that much cheaper, or is this an accounting slight of hand issue? What is the actual cost minus marketing to develop a drug and bring it to market that created this situation. Furthermore, what is the cost of marketing on the books for drug companies that also would drive R&D into third parties. Marketing costs are really not cheap - and they have been rising, especially as more prescription drugs are advertised to consumers. How much of this cost is also driving cost cutting/offset of risk? (especially wondering since these issues appear appears the recall + no more manufacturing of Avui-Q. The auto-injector issues that caused the recall were untraceable/not replicatable at the Sanofi factory - and seem to be based on descriptions user error driven - and lower than the user error/failure rate of EpiPen. Meanwhile, Sanofi isn't the inventor - Kaléo/pair of brother founders is/are, and they brought nearly the exact same injector technology to market by themselves for heroin overdose. Sanofi just licensed the technology - and in the wake of the recall, decided to forfeit the license. I'm wondering how much of that deal's provisions killed the Auvi-Q, since it appears the issues behind the injector are long term fixable and profitable)