December, 18 2014, 03:15pm EDT
Biologics Industry Uses Political Power to Retain Monopoly, Price-Gouge and Limit Patient Access to Needed Medications
New Report Shows the Future of Medicine Could Be Extremely Expensive
WASHINGTON
Biologics could be the future of medicine, but that future is on a path to be extraordinarily expensive, as the brand-name biologics industry uses its political power to price-gouge and maintain indefinite monopolies, a new Public Citizen report finds. The result: Many who could benefit from biologic medications - medications derived from biologicalsources, and often produced using biotechnology methods - will not receive them.
For traditional, small-molecule medications, generic competition often leads to price reductions of 80 percent or more. But the brand-name biologics industry has maneuvered to block competition for biologics.
Even conservative estimates suggest that generic competition for biologics could save enormous sums. Express Scripts has estimated that increased substitution of generic versions of biologics ("biosimilars") can save around $250 billion in health care costs from 2014 to 2024. In Europe, biosimilar competition has led to average price reductions of 35 percent, and in some cases closer to 80 percent.
"The super-high cost of biologics is not the result of research-and-development or manufacturing costs, but government-granted monopolies," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "Without competition, biologic costs will break the bank for governments, employers and private insurers, and deprive patients of needed medicines."
After long resistance from brand-name biologics makers, the 2010 Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), enacted into law as part of the Affordable Care Act, instructed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to create a system for approving biosimilars. But the Public Citizen report, "Competition Inhibitors: How Biologics Makers are Leveraging Political Power to Maintain Monopolies and Keep Prices Sky-High," shows how, as a result of industry lobbying, the BPCIA established highly restrictive terms for the authorization of biosimilars and created new monopoly protections ("data and marketing exclusivity") that effectively bar biosimilar competition for at least 12 years.
More than four years after passage of the BPCIA, the FDA has yet to finalize regulations establishing what sort of safety testing is required for biosimilars.
"None of the actions that lawmakers took at the behest of the biologics makers had anything to do with science, patient safety or assuring fair returns on investment," said Weissman. "These barriers to competition are entirely because the brand-name biologics industry leveraged its political clout."
Meanwhile, the report shows, brand-name biologics companies continue to advocate for still more barriers to competition, focusing major efforts at the state, federal and international levels:
- The industry is lobbying at the federal and international levels to demand that biosimilars not share nonproprietary names with brand-name products. If there are distinct names, doctors and patients will likely doubt whether the products are legitimately substitutable.
- The industry has waged a vast campaign at the state level to impose burdensome requirements on pharmacists seeking to substitute FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilars for biological products. The biologics industry (BIO) has persuaded lawmakers to pass measures restricting substitution in eight states: Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah and Virginia.
- The brand-name biologics and pharmaceutical industry has urged the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to include in trade agreements provisions that would guarantee lengthy monopolies for brand-name biologics makers, and it appears that the extensive lobby efforts have paid off. On Oct. 16, a version of the intellectual property chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the trade deal between the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim counties, was released by WikiLeaks. It included a U.S. proposal that would grant brand-name biologics 12 years of exclusivity - mirroring the win scored by BIO in the Affordable Care Act.
The inclusion of 12 years for exclusivity in the TPP contradicts an effort by the White House to reduce the exclusivity period in the United States to seven years. President Barack Obama's 2015 budget calls for a seven-year period and an increase in generic competition, which would save the government $15 billion over 10 years.
"In other words, BIO lobbyists have convinced the USTR, a White House agency, to propose a position that directly contravenes the position officially favored by the White House - a position that would preclude the White House from winning a favored policy change that it believes would save taxpayers billions," Weissman said.
To speed competition, the report recommends that:
- The FDA expeditiously adopt a system for approving biosimilars;
- The FDA ensures that biosimilars designated as interchangeable share the same non-proprietary name as brand-name products;
- States do not adopt rules inhibiting substitution of interchangeable biosimilars, in the absence of a finding that the FDA has failed to establish an appropriate standard of interchangeability; and
- The United States cease efforts to include pro-monopoly data and marketing exclusivity terms in international trade agreements.
"BIO is leveraging its political power at the state, federal and international levels to obtain and maintain government-granted monopolies, which give biologics makers the ability to charge whatever they believe the market will bear," said Weissman. "Biosimilars offer the prospect of bringing price-lowering competition to the market, but first, elected officials and high government appointees must decide to stop listening to the siren call of BIO and Big Pharma, and start serving the interests of the public."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court That 'Let Trump Off the Hook' Allows Insurrection Ban on State Official
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection," said the head of one watchdog group.
Mar 18, 2024
Just two weeks after handing former U.S. President Donald Trump a crucial win, the country's Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from the only public official removed from office for participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife backed the Republican's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss—declined to take the case of Couy Griffin, who was booted off the Otero County Commission by a New Mexico court in 2022, after he was convicted of breaching and occupying Capitol grounds.
In response to a lawsuit brought by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of New Mexico residents, the state's 1st Judicial District Court removed Griffin from his local post under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone who has taken an oath to the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection."
CREW also represented Colorado Republican and Independent voters who recently sought to get Trump—facing off against Democratic President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election—off their state's primary ballot, one of several 14th Amendment battles that emerged before the ongoing primaries. In Trump's case, the court determined that states can't ban federal candidates from ballots.
"We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office," reads the majority opinion in Trump v. Anderson. "But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency."
Because of that first line, legal experts stressed, the Griffin denial is actually consistent with the justices' ruling in the Trump case, despite the apparent discrepancy. CREW said Monday that the high court "let Trump off the hook" but the group also welcomed the Griffin decision.
"By refusing to take up this appeal, the Supreme Court keeps in place the finding that January 6th was an insurrection, and ensures that states can still apply the 14th Amendment's disqualification clause to state officials," said CREW president Noah Bookbinder.
"Crucially, this decision reinforces that every decision-making body that has substantively considered the issue has found that January 6th was an insurrection, and Donald Trump engaged in that insurrection," he added. "Now it is up to the states to fulfill their duty under Section 3 to remove from office anyone who broke their oath by participating in the January 6th insurrection."
Griffin said on social media Monday that "I just found out (through the media) that my appeal to the SCOTUS has been denied. Very disappointed. I don't even know what to say. But I thank you for your prayers and for standing with me through this."
Less than an hour later, the Cowboys for Trump co-founder publicly pitched himself as a potential running mate for the presumptive GOP nominee, saying: "Has Donald Trump picked a vice president yet? Would be such an honor to only be considered."
The twice-impeached former president has not yet announced a VP. While Trump has defeated the 14th Amendment effort for now—though a November win could spark another court fight—he faces four ongoing criminal cases, two of which stem from his attempt to overturn the 2020 results. It's not clear if any of those cases will go to trial before the next presidential election.
In a bid to get his federal election interference case—and possibly others—dismissed, Trump is trying to claim presidential immunity. After declining to weigh in early on, the Supreme Court agreed to hear immunity arguments on April 25.
Trump's other election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia has been plagued by controversy involving the district attorney's love life. He also faces a federal case involving classified documents and a New York state case related to hush money.
Also in New York state, Trump, his real estate company, his adult sons, and a former executive were hit with major fines in a civil fraud case last month. His attorneys said in a Monday filing that obtaining a bond for the $464 million judgment—which includes what is owed by Don Jr. and Eric Trump—while he appeals is a "practical impossibility," meaning asset seizure is possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Major Asset Seizure Likely as Trump Can't Afford Bond for NY Fraud Case
"Trump owes this money because he fraudulently misrepresented the value of his assets—and now (oops) apparently no one will accept those assets as collateral."
Mar 18, 2024
Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month's judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump's lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.
In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a "practical impossibility" for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as "about 30 surety companies" have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.
To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—"a sum he simply does not have," reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.
Trump himself was ordered to pay $454 million; the remainder was demanded from his sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump.
A Times analysis found earlier this month that Trump has only about $350 million in cash.
James has given Trump until March 25 to pay the judgment, which was announced last month as New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron found the former president and his real estate empire, the Trump Organization, had committed "repeated and persistent fraud," including by falsifying financial statements by as much as $2.2 billion.
"It wouldn't surprise me if lenders are refusing real estate as collateral due to his lying about their value," said attorney Blake Allen.
The attorney general said last month that regardless of Trump's difficulty in securing the bond, her office is "prepared to make sure that the judgment is paid to New Yorkers" and suggested she would pursue asset seizure.
"I look at 40 Wall Street each and every day," James toldABC News, referring to one of Trump's buildings in New York's Financial District.
James hasn't publicly stated what other Trump assets she would potentially seize from the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.
On Monday, Trump asked an appeals court to issue a stay on the judgment, pausing enforcement while his appeal proceeds, or to accept just $100 million.
In addition to potentially levying and selling Trump's assets, Syracuse University law professor Gregory Germain toldThe Associated Press last month, James' office could "lien his real property, and garnish anyone who owes him money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders Says US Must 'Fundamentally Rethink' Its Foreign Policy
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people."
Mar 18, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday called for a "revolution in American foreign policy" that replaces "greed, militarism, and hypocrisy" with "solidarity, diplomacy, and human rights."
In a lengthy piece published in Foreign Affairs, Sanders (I-Vt.) asserted that "it is long past time to fundamentally reorient American foreign policy," a shift that starts with "acknowledging the failures of the post–World War II bipartisan consensus and charting a new vision that centers human rights, multilateralism, and global solidarity."
"If the goal of foreign policy is to help create a peaceful and prosperous world, the foreign policy establishment needs to fundamentally rethink its assumptions," the democratic socialist senator wrote. "Spending trillions of dollars on endless wars and defense contracts is not going to address the existential threat of climate change or the likelihood of future pandemics. It is not going to feed hungry children, reduce hatred, educate the illiterate, or cure diseases. It is not going to help create a shared global community and diminish the likelihood of war."
"In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people," Sanders argued. "This movement must have the courage to take on the greed of the international oligarchy, in which a few thousand billionaires exercise enormous economic and political power."
Sanders' article examines U.S. foreign policy since World War II, underscoring commonalities between the many wars and acts of aggression perpetrated by Washington over the decades.
"Dating back to the Cold War, politicians in both major parties have used fear and outright lies to entangle the United States in disastrous and unwinnable foreign military conflicts," the senator wrote, noting the U.S.-led war in Southeast Asia in which as many as 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians and more than 58,000 American troops were killed.
Sanders also highlighted the U.S. record of perpetrating or backing coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, and other countries, "often in support of authoritarian regimes that brutally repressed their own people and exacerbated corruption, violence, and poverty."
"Washington is still dealing with the fallout from such meddling today, confronting deep suspicion and hostility in many of these countries, which complicates U.S. foreign policy and undermines American interests," he wrote.
Sanders then moved on to the 21st century, when the George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attacks by committing "nearly 2 million U.S. troops and over $8 trillion to a 'Global War on Terror' and catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq"—the latter "built on an outright lie."
The senator continued:
The Iraq War was not an aberration. In the name of the Global War on Terror, the United States carried out torture, illegal detention, and "extraordinary renditions," snatching suspects around the world and holding them for long periods at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and CIA "black sites" around the world. The U.S. government implemented the Patriot Act, which resulted in mass surveillance domestically and internationally. The two decades of fighting in Afghanistan left thousands of U.S. troops dead or wounded and caused many hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. Today, despite all that suffering and expenditure, the Taliban is back in power.
"I wish I could say that the foreign policy establishment in Washington learned its lesson after the failures of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror," Sanders wrote. "But, with a few notable exceptions, it has not."
"In the past decade alone, the United States has been involved in military operations in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen," he noted. "The U.S. military maintains around 750 military bases in 80 countries and is increasing its presence abroad as Washington ramps up tensions with Beijing. Meanwhile, the United States is supplying [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's Israel with billions of dollars in military funding while he annihilates Gaza."
"U.S. policy on China is another illustration of failed foreign policy groupthink, which frames the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum struggle," Sanders said. "For many in Washington, China is the new foreign policy bogeyman—an existential threat that justifies higher and higher Pentagon budgets."
Revisiting a major theme from his two Democratic presidential runs, Sanders contended that "economic policy is foreign policy."
"As long as wealthy corporations and billionaires have a stranglehold on our economic and political systems, foreign policy decisions will be guided by their material interests, not those of the vast majority of the world’s population," he said. "That is why the United States must address the moral and economic outrage of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, in which the richest 1% of the planet owns more wealth than the bottom 99%—an inequality that allows some people to own dozens of homes, private airplanes, and even entire islands, while millions of children go hungry or die of easily prevented diseases."
"The benefits of making this shift in foreign policy would far outweigh the costs," Sanders wrote. "The United States must recognize that our greatest strength as a nation comes not from our wealth or our military might but from our values of freedom and democracy."
"The biggest challenges of our times, from climate change to global pandemics, will require cooperation, solidarity, and collective action," he added, "not militarism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular