[Ip-health] Op-Ed: Eshoo amendment will give too much protection to biotech

[Sarah Rimmington]

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_12901614  or
http://www.essentialaction.org/access/index.php?/archives/198-Opinion-Eshoo=
-Amendment-Will-Give-Too-Much-Protection-To-Biotech.html

By Sarah Rimmington and Robert Weissman

Special to the San Jose (Silicon Valley) Mercury News
Posted: 07/23/2009 08:00:00 PM PDT

As Congress considers health care reform, many members are suggesting
that reform must be tempered in light of the potential expense of
expanding coverage.

Why then is that same Congress on the verge of adopting an amendment to
the health care legislation that will cost consumers and the government
tens of billions of dollars? And will Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton,
who holds a key position on the crucial House committee, vote to support
a giant giveaway to Big Pharma and the biotech industry? Or will he
support common-sense measures to control costs and foster competition?

Big Pharma is salivating at the prospect of hijacking health care reform
to enhance its ability to price gouge the American public.

As the House Energy and Commerce Committee meets to vote on health care
legislation, it is expected to consider an amendment from Reps. Anna
Eshoo of Palo Alto, Joe Barton of Texas and Jay Inslee of Washington
state =97 supported by Big Pharma and the biotech industry =97 to authorize
generic competition for biotech drugs. Currently, there is no regulatory
process for approval of generic versions of this class of
pharmaceuticals, known as biologics.

Biologics make up roughly half of the most important new medicines,
including most new cancer drugs, drugs for the treatment of severe
arthritis and psoriasis, MS, diabetes, and numerous vaccines.

They are priced significantly higher on average than brand-name
conventional drugs. For example, the top-selling biologic Enbrel,
Pfizer/Amgen's arthritis treatment, costs $15,000-20,000 per patient per
year. Roche/Genentech's cancer drug Avastin costs approximately $185,000
per year.

Biotech's argument that it must charge 22 times more on average for
biologics than for conventional drugs because biologics cost more to
develop is untrue. Studies frequently cited by the brand-name industry
report the cost of producing brand-name conventional drugs is almost
identical =97 $1.2 billion v. $1.3 billion. Brand-name companies charge so
much simply because they can.

Rather than creating price-lowering competition, the Eshoo approach
would establish extended monopoly protections totaling 12.5 years and
exceeding the monopolies already conferred by patents, as well as
imposing a series of needless hurdles for approval of generics. The
proposal is competing with a pro-consumer bipartisan alternative offered
by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman of Los Angeles and
Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia. All major consumer groups involved in the
issue support the Waxman-Deal approach, which would expedite generic
competition.

The Obama administration recently indicated that seven years' data
exclusivity is a "generous compromise" between the zero years
recommended in a recent Federal Trade Commission report and the 14 years
sought by Big Pharma. Traditional chemical drugs receive three or five
years' data exclusivity under existing law.

Delaying generic competition for almost a decade and a half will cost
consumers and the government tens of billions of dollars. Moreover, the
other obstacles to generic competition in the Pharma-favored proposal
might keep generic firms out of the market for biologics altogether.

Why would Congress consider such a windfall? Might it have something to
do with Pharma's legion of lobbyists =97 paid more than $1 million a day?

It is not too late for Congress to pull back from the precipice, deny
the biotech industry an unjustified windfall and save money for
consumers and taxpayers.


Sarah Rimmington is an attorney with Essential Action's Access to
Medicines Project and Robert Weissman is the director of Essential
Action, a nonpartisan, non-industry-funded public health and corporate
accountability group. They wrote this article for the Mercury News.


--
Sarah Rimmington
Attorney
Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project
Washington, DC
Tel: +1 (202) 387-8030
Cell: +1 (202) 422-2687
www.essentialaction.org/access/