Where Does It Say the Supreme Court Has the Power to Hike Medicine Prices to 5x Their Cost?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/where-does-it-say-supreme-court-has-constitutional-power-hike-medicine-prices-5x-their-cost



The Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage equality deserved all the attention they received — but it’s another case heard this week that will affect even more people over the course of their lifetimes. And it could cost Americans millions in prescription drug bills.

The case falls within a sadly predictable continuum for the Roberts Court, which virtually always sides with the corporate litigant over the government or individual. This time, the arguments in FTC v. Actavis revolve around an insidious tactic common to the nation’s largest drug companies, and known as “pay for delay.” As a result of the likely ruling in this case , drug companies will be able to charge consumers as much as five times the potential cost of their products. And both government regulators and consumers will watch helplessly as pharmaceutical companies bribe generic drug makers to retain their exclusive holds on the lifesaving medicines we all inevitably require.

The first thing to know here is that U.S. pharmaceuticals get a very good deal from the federal government. For every new drug they produce, they get rewarded with long-term patents that grant them exclusive rights to market and sell the product for as much as 20 years – which guarantees them billions in profits and no competitors in the marketplace. Drug companies claim that they must be allowed to profit off of products they nurtured with expensive research and development. In reality, taxpayer-funded research from academia or the National Institutes of Health account for the vast majority of vital drugs brought to market every year, and R&D is a small fraction of the overall drug company budget. What’s more, drug companies routinely use their monopoly power to jack up pharmaceutical prices, which cost far more in the U.S. than anywhere in the world.

Congress tried to deal with this problem as far back as 1984. The Hatch-Waxman Act accelerated the FDA approval process for generic drugs, essentially copies of the brand-name products. Typically, generics sell at a much lower price – in most cases by 80-90 percent, which obviously makes them quite popular. So the introduction of a generic drug basically ends the profitability for the brand-name manufacturer, while delivering big benefits to the consumer. Under Hatch-Waxman, companies can sell generics before the expiration of the exclusive patent by successfully challenging the patents’ validity (and there are often grounds for such a challenge, as drug company lawyers often find every loophole imaginable to extend their patent life or acquire new patents for slightly different versions of the same drug).

[AndyA]

1. The cost of prescription drugs is a major cause of out of control health care costs

How much lower could drug prices be if the pharma companies didn't advertise? I'm so sick of the ads. Often, the side effects are worse than what the drug is supposed to treat: "Side effects, while rare, can include sudden and unexpected death..."

The CEOs of the pharma companies make huge salaries with lots of benefits. How much lower could drug costs be if CEOs were paid a reasonable salary?

Instead of dealing with some of the true causes of soaring health care costs, Congress wants to cut benefits to those who need them the most instead. We have the best government corporate money can buy, and the pharma companies are up to their necks in it.

[marmar]

2. .........

[xchrom]

3. ...

[MineralMan]

4. Whenever you visit your doctor and he is about to prescribe

some medication, you should ask this question:

"Is there a medication that is now available as a generic that would do the same thing?"

Doctors get bombarded with information on the newest, latest (read most expensive) drugs all the time. So do consumers, who see the ads for those drugs on television. In some cases, the new medication is superior to older medications that are available as generics, but those cases aren't common.

When you ask your doctor that question, odds are very high that he will say, "Sure. I'll prescribe {insert generic name}. It's been used effectively for many years, and should take care of your issue. If not, we can change the prescription."

Many new medications are created for the reason that the old one that worked just fine is about to become a generic. Many. The bottom line is that medications that are now generic were once the hot new drugs being advertised on television and touted as the latest, best drug by the pharmaceutical companies.

In most cases, there is a generic that works great. If not, then you can choose a different medication.

[green for victory]

5. This guy has the answer

but can't get any airtime...

Now why could that be...



Pharmageddon by David Healy-- check out the reviews
http://www.amazon.com/Pharmageddon-David-Healy/dp/0520270983

The system is broken. If it isn't fixed- well won't that be a legacy. Historians in 300 years will marvel at the $2000 per SECOND this insane empire spent on their war toys but left bridges to fall down and schools to be taken over by for profit entities.