Using market-exclusivity incentives to promote pharmaceutical innovation

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 363, Issue 19, 2010, Pages 1855-1862

  Kesselheim, Aaron S ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; GENERIC DRUG; TERAZOSIN;

DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG MARKETING; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; PATENT; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

EID: 78049521348     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMhle1002961     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. PhRMA. Pharmaceutical industry profile 2009. (http://www .phrma.org/files/attachments/PhRMA%202009%20Profile% 20FINAL.pdf.)
2. Arias CA, Murray BE. Antibiotic-resistant bugs in the 21st century - a clinical super-challenge. N Engl J Med 2009;360:439-43.
3. Trouiller P, Olliaro P, Torreele E, Orbinski J, Laing R, Ford N. Drug development for neglected diseases: a deficient market and a public-health policy failure. Lancet 2002;359:2188-94. (Pubitemid 34694030)
4. Rai AK, Reichman JH, Uhlir PF, Crossman C. Pathways across the valley of death: novel intellectual property strategies for accelerated drug discovery. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2008;8:1-36.
5. Frantz S. Industry sweats after patent verdict. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;5:443-4.
6. New drug development: science, business, regulatory and intellectual property issues cited as hampering drug development efforts. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, November 2006. (Publication no. GAO-07-49.) (http://www .gao.gov/new.items/d0749.pdf.)
7. Higgins MJ, Graham SJH. Balancing innovation and access: patent challenges tip the scales. Science 2009;326:370-1.
8. Roin BN. Unpatentable drugs and the standards of patentability. Tex Law Rev 2009;87:503-70.
9. Kesselheim AS. Drug development for neglected diseases - the trouble with FDA review vouchers. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1981-3.
10. Ridley DB, Grabowski HG, Moe JL. Developing drugs for developing countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006;25:313-24.
11. Wheadon DE. Market exclusivity for biologics. N Engl J Med 2010;362:661.
12. Shrank WH, Choudhry NK, Agnew-Blais J, et al. State generic substitution laws can lower drug outlays under Medicaid. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:1383-90.
13. Shrank WH, Hoang T, Ettner SL, et al. The implications of choice: prescribing generic or preferred pharmaceuticals improves medication adherence for chronic conditions. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:332-7. (Pubitemid 43244321)
14. Rabin RC. With expanded coverage for the poor, fears of a big headache. New York Times. April 27, 2010.
15. Tamblyn R, Laprise R, Hanley JA, et al. Adverse events associated with prescription drug cost-sharing among poor and elderly persons. JAMA 2001;285:421-9.
16. Act of Dec. 12, 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015-3028 (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. 200-211, 301-307 (1994)).
17. Technology transfer: administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by research universities. Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office, May 7, 1998. (Publication no. GAO/RCED-98-126.) (http:// www.gao.gov/archive/1998/rc98126. pdf.)
18. Eisenberg RS. Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. VA Law Rev 1996;82:1663-727.
19. Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA. Numbers, quality, and entry: how has the Bayh-Dole Act affected U.S. patenting and licensing? In: Jaffe AB, Lerner J, Stern S, eds. Innovation policy and the economy. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001:187-220.
20. Henderson R, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M. Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting: 1965-1988. Rev Econ Stat 2001;80:119-27.
21. Patent policy: recent changes in federal law considered beneficial. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, April 1987. (GAO publication no. RCED-87-44.) (http://archive.gao.gov/ t2pbat21/132994.pdf.)
22. Jensen R, Thursby M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions. Am Econ Rev 2001;91:240-59. (Pubitemid 33594479)
23. Pressman L, Burgess R, Cook-Deegan RM, et al. The licensing of DNA patents by US academic institutions: an empirical survey. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:31-9. (Pubitemid 43083162)
24. Mowery DC, Nelson RR, Sampat BN, Ziedonis AA. Ivory tower and industrial innovation: university-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books, 2004.
25. Idem. The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Res Policy 2001;30:99-119.
26. Sampat BN, Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: a re-examination. Int J Ind Organ 2003;21:1371-90.
27. Sobolski GK, Barton JH, Emanuel EJ. Technology licensing: lessons from the US experience. JAMA 2005;294:3137-40.
28. Bulut H, Moschini G. U.S. universities' net returns from patenting and licensing: a quantile regression analysis. Econ Innovation New Technol 2009;18:123-37.
29. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998;280:698-701.
30. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, et al. Data with-holding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA 2002;287:473-81.
31. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS. Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 1997; 277:1224-8.
32. Walsh JP, Cho C, Cohen WM. View from the bench: patents and material transfers. Science 2005;309:2002-3. (Pubitemid 41362303)
33. Walsh JP, Cohen WH, Arora A. Working through the patient problem. Science 2003;299:1021.
34. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. University-based science and biotechnology products: defining the boundaries of intellectual property. JAMA 2005;293:850-4. (Pubitemid 40250369)
35. So AD, Sampat BN, Rai AK, et al. Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience. PLoS Biol 2008;6(10):e262.
36. 21 U.S.C. 360bb(a)(2) (2008).
37. Report of the National Commission on Orphan Diseases. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, February 1989.
38. Haffner ME. Adopting orphan drugs - two dozen years of treating rare diseases. N Engl J Med 2006;354:445-7.
39. Griggs RC, Batshaw M, Dunkle M, et al. Clinical research for rare disease: opportunities, challenges, and solutions. Mol Genet Metab 2009;96:20-6.
40. Arnon SS. Creation and development of the public service orphan drug Human Botulism Immune Globulin. Pediatrics 2007;119:785-9.
41. Goldman DP, Clarke AE, Garber AM. Creating the costliest orphan: the Orphan Drug Act in the development of Ceredase. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992;8:583-97.
42. Peabody JW, Ruby A, Cannon P. The economics of orphan drug policy in the US: can the legislation be improved? Pharmacoeconomics 1995;8:374-84.
43. Walsh B. The tier 4 phenomenon: shifting the high cost of drugs to consumers. Washington, DC: AARP, March 9, 2009. (http://assets.aarp.org/ rgcenter/health/tierfour.pdf.)
44. Yin W. R&D policy, agency costs and innovation in personalized medicine. J Health Econ 2009;28:950-62.
45. Arno PS, Bonuck K, Davis M. Rare diseases, drug development, and AIDS: the impact of the Orphan Drug Act. Milbank Q 1995;73:231-52.
46. Walton SM, Schumock GT, Lee KV, Alexander GC, Meltzer D, Stafford RS. Prioritizing future research on off-label prescribing: results of a quantitative evaluation. Pharmacotherapy 2008;28:1443-52.
47. Singh AK, Szczech L, Tang KL, et al. Correction of anemia with epoetin alfa in chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:2085-98. (Pubitemid 44749317)
48. Pub. L. No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984).
49. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Effective patent life in pharmaceuticals. Int J Technol Manag 2000;19:98-120.
50. Engelberg AL. Special patent provisions for pharmaceuticals: have they outlived their usefulness? IDEA J Law Technol 1999;39:389-426.
51. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Longer patents for increased generic competition in the US: the Waxman-Hatch Act after one decade. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;10:Suppl 2:110-23.
52. Congressional Budget Office. How increased competition from generic drugs has affected prices and returns in the pharmaceutical industry. July 1998. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/ 6xx/doc655/pharm.pdf.)
53. Seoane-Vazquez E, Schondelmeyer S, Szeinbach SL. Drug patent life and generic entry: analysis of the new molecular entities approved by the FDA between 1980 and 1999. J Pharm Financ Econ Policy 2008;16:67-85.
54. Weiswasser ES, Danzis SD. The Hatch-Waxman Act: history, structure, and legacy. Antitrust Law J 2003;71:585-608.
55. Singer N. Generics face longer wait time for approval. New York Times. February 19, 2010:B3.
56. Hemphill CS. Paying for delay: pharmaceutical patent settlement as a regulatory design problem. N Y Univ Law Rev 2006;81:1553-623.
57. Korn DE, Lietzan E, Scott SW. A new history and discussion of 180-day exclusivity. Food Drug Law J 2009;64:335-90.
58. Zelenay JL Jr. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: is a faster Food and Drug Administration always a better Food and Drug Administration? Food Drug Law J 2005;60:261-338.
59. Shulman SR, Kaitin KI. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992: a 5-year experiment for the industry and the FDA. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9:121-33.
60. Kaitin KI. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 and the new drug development process. Am J Ther 1997;4:167-72.
61. Food and Drug Administration: effect of user fees on drug approval times, withdrawals, and other agency activities. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, September 2002. (Publication no. GAO-02-958.)
62. Hennessy S, Strom BL. PDUFA reauthorization - drug safety's golden moment of opportunity? N Engl J Med 2007;356:1703-4.
63. Okie S. What ails the FDA? N Engl J Med 2005;352:1063-6. [Erratum, N Engl J Med 2005;352:2563.]
64. Public Citizen. Problems in the new drug approval process: a case study of Lotronex. (http://www.citizen.org/congress/ reform/drugsafety/articles.cfm? ID=7442.)
65. Friedman MA, Woodcock J, Lumpkin MM, Shuren JE, Hass AE, Thompson LJ. The safety of newly approved medicines: do recent market removals mean there is a problem? JAMA 1999; 281:1728-34.
66. Horton R. Lotronex and the FDA: a fatal erosion of integrity. Lancet 2001;357:1544-5. (Pubitemid 32488806)
67. Olsen MK. The risk we bear: the effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety. J Health Econ 2008;27:175-200.
68. Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1354-61.
69. Nardinelli C, Lanthier M, Temple R. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med 2008;359:95-6.
70. Grabowski H, Wang YR. Do faster Food and Drug Administration reviews adversely affect patient safety? An analysis of the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act. J Law Econ 2008;51:377-406.
71. Vernon JA, Golec JH, Lutter R, Nardinelli C. FDA new drug approval times, prescription drug user fees, and R&D spending. Working paper 06-21. Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, September 2006.
72. Szefler SJ, Whelan G, Gleason M, Spahn JD. The need for pediatric studies of allergy and asthma medications. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2003;3:478-83. (Pubitemid 39359519)
73. Pasquali SK, Sanders SP, Li JS. Oral antihypertensive trial design and analysis under the pediatric exclusivity provision. Am Heart J 2002;144:608-14.
74. 21 U.S.C. § 355A(b) (1997).
75. Rodriguez W, Selen A, Avant D, et al. Improving pediatric dosing through pediatric initiatives: what we have learned. Pediatrics 2008;121:530-9.
76. Boots I, Sukhai RN, Klein RH, et al. Stimulation programs for pediatric drug research - do children really benefit? Eur J Pediatr 2007;166:849-55.
77. Benjamin DK Jr, Smith PB, Jadhav P, et al. Pediatric antihypertensive trial failures: analysis of end points and dose range. Hypertension 2008;51:834-40. (Pubitemid 351654692)
78. Benjamin DK Jr, Smith PB, Murphy MD, et al. Peer-reviewed publication of clinical trials completed for pediatric exclusivity. JAMA 2006;296:1266-73.
79. DeVeaugh-Geiss J, March J, Shapiro M, et al. Child and adolescent psychopharmacology in the new millennium: a workshop for academia, industry, and government. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2006;45:261-70.
80. Li JS, Eisenstein EL, Grabowski HG, et al. Economic return of clinical trials performed under the pediatric exclusivity program. JAMA 2007;297:480-8.
81. Baker-Smith CM, Benjamin DK Jr, Grabowski HG, et al. The economic returns of pediatric clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs. Am Heart J 2008;156:682-8.
82. Jaffe AB. Measurement issues. In: Branscomb LM, Keller JH, eds. Investing in innovation: creating a research and innovation policy that works. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999:64-84.
83. Sen. Hatch (Utah). Cong. Rec. S14254 (11 Oct. 1984).
84. National Institutes of Health. A plan to ensure taxpayers' interests are protected. July 2001. (http://www.nih.gov/news/ 070101wyden.htm.)
85. Hollis A, Pogge T. The health impact fund: making new medicines accessible for all. New Haven, CT: Incentives for Global Health, 2008. (http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/igh/hif-book.pdf.)