FTC: Kill pay-for-delay, save $35B

Would you like to save $35 billion on healthcare? Trick question, right? Put the words "save" and "billion" and "healthcare" in the same sentence these days, and you'll probably get a call from Congress. So we suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that the Federal Trade Commission is getting some traction in its long-running battle against those so-called "pay-for-delay" deals that forestall copycat drugs.

Yesterday we told you that the Supreme Court had declined to hear a pay-for-delay case. But the Obama Administration has its eye on a similar case coming up for appeal soon, and make no mistake: Officials intend to weigh in with an anti-deal opinion. Meanwhile, the FTC's top dog was speaking yesterday at a Center for American Progress-sponsored event, claiming that American consumers could save $35 billion over 10 years if the deals were banned. Federal programs would save about $12 billion, Chairman Jon Leibowitz said (in prepared remarks).

"[E]liminating these deals is one of the Federal Trade Commission's highest priorities," Leibowitz said. Some in Congress support that idea: As the FTC chairman pointed out, a House bill was passed out of subcommittee recently, and a bipartisan Senate version is poised to be marked up as early as Thursday. We'll have to wait and see whether the agency finally gets its way--or whether the so-far-permissive stance of the courts holds sway.

- read the FTC chairman's speech
- check out the Wall Street Journal Health Blog post

Suggested Articles

Pfizer isn't giving up in biosims. This week, it unveiled launches to three Roche blockbusters, with two already on the market.

Novo Nordisk is betting big on GLP-1 Saxenda in its global obesity push, but England's cost watchdog is unimpressed with the drug's long-term outlook.

Tecentriq didn’t show benefit against simple observation at delaying cancer recurrence or death in patients with muscle-invasive urothelial cancer.