Two Pharma Companies Fined Over 'Pay For Delay'; Novartis Unrepentant About Suffering Caused
from the profits-before-patients dept
Back in April of this year, we wrote about a spate of investigations around the world into "pay for delay" deals, whereby a big pharma company essentially buys off manufacturers of generics so that the former can continue to enjoy monopoly pricing long after its patents have expired. One of those involved the European Union, and the two pharma companies Johnson & Johnson and Novartis. As PharmaTimes reports, fines are being imposed on them for their actions:
The European Commission has fined Johnson & Johnson (J&J) just under 10.8 million euros and Novartis 5.49 million euros, after finding that their subsidiaries in the Netherlands had agreed an anticompetitive deal aimed at delaying the market entry there of a generic version of the painkiller Duragesic (fentanyl), thus breaching European Union (EU) antitrust rules.
Of course, such sums are little more than a wrist slap for pharma giants, but it's nonetheless good to see the European Commission making clear that this anti-competitive behavior is not acceptable in the EU:
The payment by J&J to Novartis "shockingly deprived patients in the Netherlands, including people suffering from cancer, from access to a cheaper version of this medicine," said Joaquin Almunia, the European Commission vice president in charge of competitive policy.
Despite that fact, with the likelihood that cancer patients were probably in more pain than was necessary, some remain in denial:
In a statement, Novartis and [its subsidiary] Sandoz say they "reject the Commission's allegation that the 2005 co-promotion agreement was intended to deprive patients in the Netherlands of cheaper medicines."
Whether or not that was the "intention", it was the inevitable effect, and quibbling over the difference shows the moral squalor of companies like Novartis that regard additional suffering of cancer patients as some kind collateral damage that can be ignored in the cause of pumping up their profits.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: european commission, fines, netherlands, pay for delay, pharmaceuticals
Companies: johnson and johnson, novartis
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Alternatively, all of the company's patents in that country are shortened in duration equal to the amount of time the generics were artificially kept from market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let the competing companies sue Novatris over "expected future profits" XD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Extreme sovereignty - corporate edition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do however like the shortened duration of patents idea. That'll ensure the patients still have access to needed medication but the company will feel the sting of pulling these kinds of things when generics get released by other companies (which in turn would give greater access to patients who couldn't afford/use brand medication).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the generic version is exactly equivalent (which I believe is the idea), then how is that a problem? The people who were on the more expensive form can just switch to the cheaper generic, and proceed without issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obvious, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is common
Just because something is off patent...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ooooh! Vicious! (not!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ooooh! Vicious! (not!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia: Dallas Buyers Club (film)
No I still loath Hollywood.
Still the movie there shows how people will go to great lengths to do what they know it is right, laws or no laws, most people have two good eyes they can see it, they don't need others to explain to them what are they are seeing in most cases. I am talking about the real life here not the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EU, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! KILL THIS TAFTA/TTIP DEAL AND KEEP OUT OF ANY FUTURE ONES WITH THE USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Related News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/glaxosmithkline-pay-doctors_n_4457286.html
Oh ... you mean we should not have been doing that?
Well. if anyone had told us beforehand ... this was certainly not intentional. We have done nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What did you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What did you expect?
The devil made me do it
It's not my fault
fiduciary responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seeing as patents are getting in the way of public safety, it appears time for them to go the way of the Dodo Bird.
Unless of course, public officials could care less about "public safety" when profits are involved.
At least the EU Commission seems to care a little bit about "public safety". I doubt anything would have been done about this if it happened in morally corrupt America.
Isn't Johnson and Johnson a "Family owned American Company"? For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Pharma laughed at this
I rather doubt it will happen here, as the FDA is a compliant and toothless wonder when it comes to Big Pharma. They'll allow anything on the market-literally, without all that pesky drug testing that is supposed to go with it. They've been accused of allowing many drugs on the market to be released with shoddy testing behind them, only to find that the drug makers themselves were rigging the system.
How many people have been harmed by this? I don't even want to know-but I'm sure it's in the thousands.
Until the FDA does something more substantial than pat them on the back for not getting caught at releasing dangerous drugs, Big Pharma will continue to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can only speak to the US (not Europe), and within the US the above comment is incorrect. The generic manufacturer who has entered into one of these arrangements is absolutely permitted to engage in the generic market on the very day that the patent expires. The patent now being past tense, the patent holder is now a former patent holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because legally the generic manufacturer is not bound by a patent, doesn't stop the former patent holder keeping hold of the market. See Lipitor related link in post above entitled "this is common".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]