Dueling studies take sides on harm, benefit of pay-for-delay

While members of the U.S. Congress argue over whether there is a need to make so-called pay-for-delay patent settlements illegal in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, organizations on both sides of the issue are pumping out studies to influence their thinking. This week the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) first published a study from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics that says the settlements saved payers and consumers $25.5 billion from 2005-2012 and brought generic medicines to market on average 81 months sooner than if they had not hit until their actual expiration. Now, U.S. Public Interest Research Group has published a study that claims that patients taking one of 20 blockbuster drugs ended up paying, on average, 10 times more than they would have if pay-for-delay were prohibited. Hard to say where this will lead. Release | More

Suggested Articles

The future may be uncertain for AZ’s Imfinzi in first-line lung cancer, but its targeted med Tagrisso now boasts a green light in that setting.

Ultragenyx is back with another FDA nod, this time for Crysvita to treat X-linked hypophosphatemia in patients one year and older.

Roche got a two pieces of good Hemlibra news early this week—and what's good for Hemlibra must be good for Roche.