Copyright 1999 Gannett Company, Inc.
USA TODAY
November 17, 1999, Wednesday, FINAL
EDITION
Correction Appended
SECTION: NEWS;
Pg. 26A
LENGTH: 518 words
HEADLINE: Drug firms seek to tighten
lock on high-priced prescriptions
BODY:
Anyone
hoping that Congress would take a serious crack at addressing
the rapid rise
in prescription drug costs cannot be pleased by
this week's
turn of events.
At a time when drug prices are
rising at a brisk 12% annual clip
-- pushing up not only out-of-pocket
drug spending but also insurance
premiums -- lawmakers are
seriously considering a measure that
likely would keep prices needlessly
high for several medications.
Chief among them is Claritin, the
extremely popular prescription-only
allergy remedy.
For years,
its maker, Schering-Plough, has tried to coax Congress
into granting a
three-year extension on Claritin's patent, due
to expire in 2002.
That would help protect Schering's $ 1.9
billion in domestic sales
from low-price generic competition. But it would
cost consumers
an estimated $ 300 million in higher prices, since generics
generally
come in as low as 60% below brand-name prices.
Now
Schering and other firms are again trying to get patents on
a handful of brand-name drugs extended. A Senate committee
is
set to mark up a bill this week, and the measure could wind up
in the
big spending bill Congress is rushing to put together before
it heads home
for the year.
Schering and other drug companies
pushing this measure are, ironically
enough, trying to exploit a 1984 law
designed to moderate drug
prices by injecting competition
into the market. That law made
it easier to market generic versions of older
drugs. At the same
time, it encouraged research and
development of new drugs by extending
drug
patents five years.
As a sop to the drug
industry, that 1984 reform gave drugs that
were already in
the approval pipeline, such as Claritin, a two-year
bonus on their
patent lives.
But drug companies
have pushed for even longer patents on these
"pipeline"
drugs. Schering sought to get additional
extensions
slipped into big bills in the dead of night,
only to be blocked
by vigilant lawmakers. And now it wants Congress to wash
its hands
of the matter and allow the Patent and Trademark
Office to decide
on the extension, assuming the PTO will be
a more sympathetic
venue.
Never mind that Claritin has already
received four years of additional
patent life -- two from
the 1984 law and another two as a result
of a world trade agreement -- and
it stands to get another six-month
extension by agreeing to
run pediatric tests on the drug.
And never mind
that giving Schering the chance to extend its Claritin
patent would set a tempting precedent for other
drug companies
anxious to hold on to their lucrative
monopolies beyond the reasonable
limits set in law.
In
Washington, special-interest money often talks a lot louder
than the public
interest. And drug companies have an awfully big
megaphone,
spending billions each year to lobby Congress, and
hundreds of thousands
more on campaign contributions.
If Congress is ever going to break
its addiction to special-interest
money, this is a good place to start.
Otherwise, consumers will
keep paying through the nose for the
drugs they need.
CORRECTION-DATE:
November 18, 1999, Thursday
CORRECTION:
Wednesday's
editorial on patent extensions overstated the
drug industry's spending to lobby Congress. The industry spent
more than $37 million in 1998.
GRAPHIC: GRAPHIC, b/w,
Genevieve Lynn, USA TODAY, Source:Generic Pharmaceutical Industry
Association(Line graph)
LOAD-DATE: September 12, 2000
