3 ms·
Something about this article doesn't add up. According to the article: 1. Brands charge a premium of 10x-20x compared to generics. 2. Brands are offering n
by radicalbyte 7y ago
Something about this article doesn't add up. According to the article:
1. Brands charge a premium of 10x-20x compared to generics.
2. Brands are offering non-brand versions at about 50% of branded price.
3. Brands pay 50% kickbacks to middle men (so cut = revenue neutral).
4. Offering the cheaper version kills real generic competition.
How can 4 be true when brands haven't done anything to their net margin and the generics are still a factor cheaper than the non-branded "brand" version?
It just sounds like a bit of trickery to shut the politicians up more than something designed to hurt their competitors.
- inlined 7y agoI think the point is that they use an in-house generic, priced at their normal revenue, to get a 180d monopoly and establish a second brand. This is all on top of their existing monopoly from the original patent.
- Sacho 7y agoThat's quite scummy, but presumably the examples in the article have already lost their competitive edge? The EpiPen authorized generic was launched roughly 3 years ago.
- danmaz74 7y agoMy understanding is that, by taking away the 180d exclusivity window from generic manufacturers, the latter are less likely to risk developing their own version of the product
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- sct202 7y agoA risk with 4. is that the fake generic's price could drop from 50% of branded price to much lower to kill off competition or at least make it hard for the competitor to justify all their initial start up costs.