Despite some improvements in access to evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder, treatment rates remain low at under a quarter of those with need. High costs for brand name products in these medication markets have limited the volume of drugs purchased, particularly through public health insurance and grant programs. Brand firm anti-competitive practices around the leading buprenorphine product Suboxone — including product hops, citizen petitions and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy abuses — helped to maintain high prices by extending brand exclusivity periods and hindering generic drug entry. Remedies to address costly anti-competitive activities include adoption of the proposed CREATES Act and modernization of the Hatch-Waxman Act by the Congress, and implementation of substantive modifications to the Food and Drug Administration citizen petition filing procedures. Given the persistence of these abuses, prescriptive changes are favorable to the procedural and clarifying steps thus far favored by the federal government. Extrapolating from the 37% price declines attributable to generic entry for buprenorphine tablets in 2011, our calculations suggest that implementing these remedies to facilitate generic competition with Suboxone film would have resulted in savings of approximately $703 million overall and $203 million to Medicaid in 2017.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
H.Hedegaard, A.M.Miniño, and M.Warner, “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 1999–2017,”National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, No. 329 (Nov. 2018), available at <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db329.htm> (last visited December 4, 2019); S.Charumilind, T.Latkovic, R.Lewis, and E.Mendez-Escobar, “Why We Need Bolder Action to Combat the Opioid Epidemic,”McKinsey & Company Report, (2018), available at <https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/healthcare-systems-and-services/our-insights/why-we-need-bolder-action-to-combat-the-opioid-epidemic> (last visited December 4, 2019); Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health,”HHS Publication No. SMA 18-5068, NSDUH Series H-53 (2018); B.Saloner and S.Karthikeyan, “Changes in Substance Abuse Treatment Use Among Individuals with Opioid Use Disorders in the United States, 2004-2013,”JAMA314 (2015): 1515-1517, at 1515; A.Lembke and J.H.Chen, “Use of Opioid Agonist Therapy for Medicare Patients in 2013,”JAMA Psychiatry73, no. 9 (2016): 990-992, at 990; E.Sandoe, C.Frye and R.Frank, “Policy Levers that States Can Use to improve Opioid Addiction Treatment and Address the Opioid Epidemic,”Health affairs Blog, Oct. 2, 2018, available at <https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180927.51221/full/> (last visited December 4, 2019).
2.
R.L.Haffajee, A.S.B.Bohnert, and P.A.Lagisetty, “Policy Pathways to Address Provider Workforce Barriers to Buprenorphine Treatment,”American Journal of Preventive Medicine54, no. 6 (2018): S230-S242, at S230-235; A.L.Pitt, K.Humphreys, and M.L.Brandeau, “Modeling Health Benefits and Harms of Public Policy Responses to the US Opioid Epidemic,”American Journal of Public Health10 (2018):1394-1400, at 1394; M.R.Larochelle, D.Bernson, T.Land, et al., “Medication for Opioid use Disorder After Nonfatal Opioid Overdose and Association with Mortality: A Cohort Study,”Annals of Internal Medicine169, no. 3 (2018): 137-145, at 137; R.P.Schwartz, J.Gryczynski, K.E.O'Grady, et al., “Opioid Agonist Treatments and Heroin Overdose Deaths in Baltimore, Maryland, 1995–2009,”American Journal of Public Health103, no. 5 (2013): 917-922, at 917; A.Y.Walley, Z.Xuan, H.H.Hackman, et al., “Opioid Overdose Rates and Implementation of Overdose Education and Nasal Naloxone Distribution in Massachusetts: Interrupted Time Series Analysis,”BMJ346 (2013): f174; L.Sordo, “Mortality Risk During and After Opioid Substitution Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies,”BMJ357 (2017): j1550, available at <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1550> (last visited December 4, 2019).
3.
21st Century Cures Act, P.L. 114-255 (2016); the Substance Use–Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act, P.L. 115-271 (2018).
4.
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, P. L. 98-417 (1984).
5.
Complaint at 10-11, State of Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc. f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al, 2:15-cv-01621-MSG (E.D. Pa filed Sept. 28, 2016); C.Moraff, “Suboxone Creator's Shocking Scheme to Profit Off of Heroin Addicts,”Daily Beast, Apr. 13, 2017, available at <https://www.thedailybeast.com/suboxone-creators-shocking-scheme-to-profit-off-of-heroin-addicts> (last visited December 4, 2019).
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, P. L. 98-417 (1984).
20.
Congressional Research Service, “The Hatch-Waxman Act: A Primer,”CRS Report R44643 (2016): 1-16, at 3-9.
21.
Id.
22.
Id.
23.
R.Feldman and E.Frondorf, “Drug Wars: A New Generation of Generic Pharmaceutical Delay,”Harvard Journal on Legislation53, no. 1 (2016): 499-780.
24.
Id.; Complaint, supra note 5, at 10-11.
25.
Feldman and Frondorf, supra note 23.
26.
A.C.Fowler, “Pharmaceutical Line Extensions in the United States: A Primer on Definitions and Incentives,”NBER White Paper, Oct. 6, 2017, available at <http://www.nber.org/aging/valmed/WhitePaper-Fowler10.2017.pdf> (last visited December 4, 2019).
27.
E.R.Berndt and M.L.Aitken, “Brand Loyalty, Generic Entry and Price Competition in Pharmaceuticals in the Quarter Century after the 1984 Waxman-Hatch Legislation,”International Journal of the Economics of Business18, no. 2 (2011): 177-201; Complaint, supra note 5, at 11-12.
A.Dabrowska, “FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS): Description and Effect on Generic Drug Development,”Congressional Research Service Report 7-5700, Mar. 16, 2018, available at <https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44810.pdf> (last visited December 4, 2019): at 5.
G.Buehler, “Improving Access to Generic Drugs,”Center for Drug Evaluation & Research, Food & Drug Administration Senate Testimony, 2006.
43.
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, P.L. 110-85 (2007).
44.
M.A.Carrier and C.Minniti, “Citizen Petitions: Long, Late-Filed, and at-Last Denied,”American University Law Review66 (2016): 305-351.
45.
Id.
46.
Id.; R.Feldman and C.Wang, “A Citizen's Pathway Gone Astray — Delaying Competition from Generic Drugs,”New England Journal of Medicine376, no. 16 (2017): 1499-1501, at 1499-1500.
47.
Feldman and Wang, supra note 46, at 1500; M.A.Carrier and D.Wander, “Citizen Petitions: An Empirical Study,”Cardozo Law Review34, no. 1 (2012): 101-146.
Memorandum Opinion, State of Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc. f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al, 2:15-cv-01621-MSG (E.D. Pa decided Oct. 25, 2017).
J.Faulkner, “Reckitt to Pay $1.4B to End US Opioid Probe,”Law360, July11, 2019, available at <https://www.law360.com/articles/1177241> (last visited December 4, 2019).
58.
Id.
59.
Id.
60.
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Combatting the Opioid Crisis: The Price Increase of an Opioid Overdose Reversal Drug and the Cost to the U.S. Health Care System Combatting the Opioid Crisis, Committee on Homeland Security (2018).
61.
Feldman and Frondorf, supra note 23.
62.
L.Clemans-Cope, M.Epstein, and G.M.Kenney, “Rapid Growth in Medicaid Spending on Medications to Treat Opioid Use Disorder and Overdose,”Urban Institute (2017): 1-12.
63.
Feldman and Frondorf, supra note 23.
64.
V.Iyengar, “Should Pharmaceutical Product Hopping Be Subject to Antitrust Scrutiny,”Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society97, no. 4 (2015): 663-689.
65.
R.G.Frank and R.L.Haffajee, “Generic Drug Policy and Opioid Use Disorder Treatment,”Laura & John Arnold Foundation White Paper 1 (2019): at 27-28.
66.
R.G.Frank and R.S.Hartman, “The Nature of Pharmaceutical Competition: Implications for Antitrust Analysis,”International Journal of the Economics of Business22, no. 2 (2015): 301-343.
67.
Dabrowska, supra note 30, at 5-8.
68.
“The Lower Health Care Costs Act,” S. 1985 (sponsored by Sen. L. Alexander), introduced Jun. 19, 2019.
69.
“The Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act of 2018 (CREATES Act),” S. 340 (sponsored by Sen. P. Leahy), introduced Feb. 5, 2019.
70.
Id.
71.
Food and Drug Administration, “Proposed Guidance: Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505 (q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Guidance for Industry,” (2018): 1-17.
72.
Id.
73.
21 U.S.C. §255(a)(1)(E).
74.
Feldman and Wang, supra note 46, at 1500.
75.
E.Evans, “Citizen Petitions: A Process Hijacked by Big Pharma?”Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review5 (2017): 115-120.
76.
Id.; Feldman and Wang, supra note 46, at 1499-1500.
77.
G.Buehler, “Senate Testimony: Improving Access to Generic Drugs,”Center for Drug Evaluation & Research, Food & Drug Administration (2006).
78.
Evans, supra note 75.
79.
21 U.S.C. §255(a)(1)(E).
80.
M.A.Carrier, “Five Actions to Stop Citizen Petition Abuse,”Columbia Law Review Online118, no. 3 (2018): 81-92.
