Comments Of Senator Patrick Leahy On Drug Patent Extensions

June 27, 2000

We are here for what you might call a reality check.

Let’s see: Another catch-all spending bill is in the works. That must mean that another bill is also floating around to extend the patent on Claritin to keep its price up.

But wait a minute. Aren’t high prescription drug prices the hot issue right now on Capitol Hill? Aren’t both parties in Congress and the President pushing hard for legislation to make drugs more affordable? No wonder a senior citizens group was handing out reward posters last week to find the sponsor of the new bill.

The House Republican leadership now has scheduled a debate on a prescription drug bill, and that’s what we should be doing in the Senate – figuring out ways to make drugs more accessible and more affordable -- instead of figuring out how to make prescription drugs less affordable for everyone.

These willey-nilley patent extension efforts will keep a handful of drugs at their current high cost. Who would ever think that a provisions making allergy medication less affordable and less accessible would make sense as part of a military construction spending bill?

This is the fourth time in about as many years that some version of what has become known as "the Claritin bill" has surfaced -- often in conjunction with a catch-all spending bill. As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee I have led efforts to block these end-runs before, and all of us here are doing all we can to prevent it from happening once again. This is the latest effort to drastically change the Hatch-Waxman law -- a carefully crafted, balanced approach to drug patent law -- without a fair and deliberative process. Patent extensions are not something that should be done behind closed doors. This is a bad bill and it is bad policy to open up the patent process to piecemeal extensions. An open debate would prove it. The Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over patent law, finds the time and the TV cameras to investigate things like the Elian Gonzalez case, but not a minute to examine this shadowy new anti-consumer bill. We should not have secret backroom dealing going on to give billion-dollar gifts to drug companies. One of the pharmaceutical giants that wants an extension is Schering-Plough, which has already had two extensions. Several of us have asked for a GAO investigation of the arguments made by the company for yet another extension. That report may be finished next month. At a minimum, we should wait until reading that report before Congress dabbles here and there in selectively extending patents. The Claritin patent does not expire until 2002. What’s the hurry?

We surely can spend some time to adequately consider this policy change before rushing to give Schering-Plough a multi-million-dollar gift. And if we stop to consider what this means to millions of consumers who are struggling to afford their prescription drugs, that is what we will do.