Tag Archives: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

Health Care Industry Gears Up to Fight ‘Medicare for All’

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/08/10/Health-Care-Industry-Gears-Fight-Medicare-All

In anticipation of a “blue wave” election that brings more Democrats to Congress, the insurance and drug industries are gearing up to push back on the idea of a single-payer health care system.

The Hill’s Peter Sullivan reports that health-care industry forces have teamed up to form the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, “which lobbyists say could run advertisements against single-payer plans and promote studies to undermine the idea.” The health care groups in the partnership, formed in June, include America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the American Medical Association and the Federation of American Hospitals.

The idea of a single-payer or “Medicare for all” health-care system has gained momentum among Democrats, even as significant questions remain about how such a massive overhaul might be implemented and how to pay for it. “Industry groups are worried that support for single-payer is quickly becoming the default position among Democrats, and they want to push back and strengthen ties to more centrist members of the party to promote alternatives,” Sullivan writes.

The groups’ concern is more about the prospects of a Democratic single-payer platform in 2020, given that a host of the party’s potential presidential candidates have backed Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” bill. “Every one of those organizations that’s in that group will look at Bernie Sanders’s single-payer and see massive losses of money,” John McDonough, a former Democratic Senate staffer who worked on the Affordable Care Act and is now at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told The Hill.

The industry’s budding campaign could pose a formidable political and public relations challenge to proponents of a single-payer system. “Leaving aside whether single payer is good policy or not,” the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt tweeted, “it seems like the idea is going to eventually need some powerful institutional allies from somewhere to advance.”

 

 

AHIP Sees SCOTUS Ruling as a Win for Generic Drugs

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/health-plans/ahip-sees-scotus-ruling-win-generic-drugs?utm_source=edit&utm_medium=ENL&utm_campaign=HLM-Daily-SilverPop_04262018&spMailingID=13391393&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1382296115&spReportId=MTM4MjI5NjExNQS2

Image result for supreme court

 

The high court upholds the constitutionality of a patent appeals process that the health insurance industry says will help to negate stall tactics used by brand name drug makers.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that upholds the constitutionality of a patent review process is being hailed as a win for consumers by the health insurance industry.

America’s Health Insurance Plans says the high court’s 7-2 decision in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group upheld the inter partes review process as a way to prevent drug manufacturers from inappropriately prolonging patent monopolies past the time intended by Congress.

“Patients had a lot at stake in the Supreme Court’s determination. Congress designed inter partes review as a quick and cost-effective way to weed out weak patents – including patents for branded prescription drugs,” AHIP said in prepared remarks.

Nicole S. Longo, senior manager of public affairs at Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said the ruling “was narrowly tailored, finding only that IPR is constitutional, not that it is efficient or fair.”

Longo pointed to another Supreme Court ruling this week, SAS Institute v Iancu, that raises concerns about the patent review process.

“SAS Institute v Iancu makes clear there are problems with the IPR process that need to be addressed. This decision points toward reforms to IPR, something stakeholders have raised time and again to the Patent and Trademark Office and members of Congress,” she said.

“Given this narrow decision, we call on Congress and the PTO to take steps to address the Supreme Court’s ruling in SAS Institutes v Iancu and concerns raised by stakeholders, and we stand ready to work with policymakers to make the IPR process more fair for all.”

According to Reuters, Congress created the reviews in 2011 to handle the perceived high number of flimsy patents issued by the patent office in prior years. Since then, the agency’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board has canceled all or part of a patent in about 80% of its final decisions.

The health insurance lobby said that the ruling ensures that millions of people will have faster access to affordable medicine.

“By upholding a faster and less costly patent review process, the Supreme Court has protected an important pathway that allows generic prescription drugs to get to patients faster. Generic drugs increase competition and choice in the market, which helps to lower drug prices,” AHIP said.

Longo said PhRMA has raised significant concerns with the IPR process because it requires drug makers to defend patents in multiple venues under different standards and with procedural rules that are less fair to patent owners than a federal court.

“This creates significant business uncertainty for biopharmaceutical companies that rely on predictable intellectual property protections to justify long-term investments needed to discover new treatments and cures,” Longo said.