Copyright 1999 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
November 9, 1999, Tuesday, Final Edition
Correction Appended
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A24
LENGTH: 371 words
HEADLINE:
Patent for Profit
BODY:
THE STORY of pharmaceutical giant Schering-Plough's efforts to get a
patent extension on its anti-allergy drug
Claritin is a vivid illustration of the way big money has become a proxy in
Congress for argument. As reported by Post writer Charles Babcock, the New
Jersey-based company has been trying since 1996 to postpone the expiration of
its rights to the highly popular and profitable medication. Failing, the company
lobbied Congress to create a patent review board that could
rule on its case.
As Mr. Babcock reported, Schering-Plough's campaign
for the extension has included hiring a new and higher-priced
team of lobbyists, donating $ 1 million to a foundation run by C. Everett Koop
(who then lobbied as well). The foundation shifted its campaign contributions to
embrace Democratic as well as Republican lawmakers, contributing $ 50,000 to the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to woo home-state senator and campaign
committee chairman Robert Torricelli, and making the company jet available to
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. Coincidence, say those who got
these favors and also helped move Schering-Plough's agenda along.
It's
not that there's no meat to the company's claim. Its contention -- that early
delays by the Food and Drug Administration in approving the
drug cut into the time the patent should have
run -- is a plausible one that also raises broader issues. Should companies be
compensated for FDA delays, or is it more urgent to replace expensive
prescription drugs such as Claritin with the lower-priced
generic equivalents that become available once a patent
expires? While Schering-Plough argues that it wants nothing but a fair hearing
for Claritin, other players -- in particular, insurers -- fear that creating
such a panel would invite a constant stream of such cases.
A spokesman
says the company was all for exploring these issues -- what it pushed for was
hearings, two of which it got, one in Mr. Hatch's committee. Mr. Hatch has also
scheduled a markup. Fair enough. And why should it have taken a blizzard of
favors to get this elementary attention? In the political money sink, things are
no better for the lobbyist than for the lobbyee.
CORRECTION-DATE: November 11, 1999
CORRECTION:
In the editorial
"Patent for Profit" of Nov. 9, a foundation run by C. Everett
Koop was mistakenly identified as the source of campaign contributions and
favors in a patent matter involving the pharmaceutical firm
Schering-Plough.
LOAD-DATE: November 09, 1999
