{"id":2911,"date":"2023-08-14T08:26:26","date_gmt":"2023-08-14T12:26:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/?p=2911"},"modified":"2023-08-14T08:26:26","modified_gmt":"2023-08-14T12:26:26","slug":"congress-must-help-lower-prescription-drug-costs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/congress-must-help-lower-prescription-drug-costs\/","title":{"rendered":"Congress Must Help Lower Prescription Drug Costs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In his State of the Union address, President Biden focused part of his comments on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs.\u00a0 In his remarks<\/a> he noted that the drug companies are \u00a0\u201cunfairly charging people hundreds of dollars.\u201d\u00a0 The President was drawing a line in the sand that he would veto any measure that weakened the ability of the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

American drug prices are the result of myriad factors, one of which is the nation\u2019s system for allowing patents for medicines.  Granting a \u201cpatent<\/a>\u201d bestows an exclusive right \u201cfor an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.\u201d  In the area of drugs, it allows a company the exclusive right to sell a medicine approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for 20 years<\/a> from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During this patent-protected period, drugs are exempt from normal price competition \u2013 usually from \u201cgeneric\u201d drug companies.  Thus, the manufacturers can charge whatever prices they want in order to maximize profits and reap the rewards of their investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rationale for the patent system was to encourage and incentivize innovation.  Companies that successfully bring new therapies to the market can be rewarded handsomely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, nowadays most companies are no longer innovating new medications.  Instead, they\u2019re monopolizing existing<\/em> ones.  For example, it is estimated<\/a> that as much as 80% of new patent applications are not<\/em> for new medicines but are for minor changes that allow companies to argue that the drugs are \u201cnew.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Allowing new patents for essentially old drugs extends the period in which price competition is prohibited, resulting in higher costs for patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These increased costs impact many Americans.  Two-thirds<\/a> of U.S. adults rely on prescription drugs.  And one in four<\/a> people struggle to pay for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When people can\u2019t afford their medicines, they often have to decide whether to skip doses<\/a> or not fill their prescriptions.  High prices impact all insured people, not just those taking medications. Because drug expenses<\/a> make up 20 percent of health insurance costs, when drug prices go up, so do premiums.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But policymakers can change that by doing more to allow generic competitors to come to market.  Savings<\/a> from new generic drug approvals are dramatic – $10-20 billion annually.  That\u2019s the power of a competitive marketplace.  Unfortunately, abuse of the patent laws by pharmaceutical companies undermines price competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patents are meant to spur innovation.  But the monopoly-pricing granted by a patent isn\u2019t meant to last forever.  Too often drug makers spend significant time and money obtaining new patents to gain protections for medications already available \u2013 thus blocking access to generics and biosimilars.  And while a wrongly-granted patent can be challenged in federal courts, these challenges take years and come with a median cost<\/a> of $3.5 million per case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, what should be done?  Clearly, the Congress must push both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the FDA to more closely examine what gets patented and eliminate incentives for drugmakers to game the system by obtaining frivolous patents.  More vigorous regulatory oversight \u2013 and whatever needed additional resources \u2013 is a critical step that must be taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, there needs to be a public database combining both agencies’ information on new and pending patents and their related drugs.  Regulators and academics need a one-stop shop for reliable information on FDA and USPTO applications and decisions.  A more robust database could inform solutions to barriers that keep drug competitors off the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is growing bipartisan support for tackling this problem.  Republican and Democratic Senators have called on the patent office to crack down on the practice of granting multiple patents for minor variations on a single invention, which they said drug companies have sometimes used to stave off generic competition for decades.  According to the Senators<\/a>, “The Patent Act envisions a single patent per invention, not a large portfolio based on one creation.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulators must heed their call.  Unless action is taken, too many Americans will be stuck with making the cruel choice between paying for needed medicine or food.  No one should have to be forced to make that choice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In his State of the Union address, President Biden focused part of his comments on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs.\u00a0 In his remarks he noted that the drug companies are \u00a0\u201cunfairly charging people hundreds of dollars.\u201d\u00a0 The President was drawing a line in the sand that he would veto any measure that weakened the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2911","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2911","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2911"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2911\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2912,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2911\/revisions\/2912"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}