Getting to the Root of High Prescription Drug Prices: Drivers and Potential Solutions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
9894 Pharma Tech Media Planner V6 2007
www.pharmtech.com years 1977– 2007 30ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATING 30 YEARS AS THE 2007 INDUSTRY’S MOST AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE Media Planner years 1977–2007 ANNIVERSARY years 1977–2007 ANNIVERSARY THE PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGY BRAND PUBLISHER’S STATEMENT Pharmaceutical Technology’s authoritative reputation and powerful brand recognition within the pharmaceutical/biopharmaceutical development & manufacturing marketplace will help you establish and maintain your own strong brand among pharma industry decision makers. A circulation of 38,667 BPA-qualified subscribers* and unmatched peer written and reviewed editorial make Pharmaceutical Technology an invaluable resource within top pharma companies, as well as small, specialty and biotech pharma companies spending billions each year on pharmaceutical development and manufacturing. Please celebrate with us as Pharmaceutical Technology marks its 30th Anniversary as the industry leader. —Michael Tracey, Publisher % 90 of readers rated Pharmaceutical Technology as important or very important to them as a professionalˆ EDITORIAL MISSION Pharmaceutical Technology publishes authoritative, reliable, and timely peer-reviewed research and expert analyses for scientists, engineers, technicians, and managers engaged in process development, manufacturing, formulation, analytical technology, packaging and regulatory compliance in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. —Douglas McCormick, Editor in chief www.pharmtech.com *BPA June 2006 Statement ^2006 Readership Study Conducted by Advanstar Research -
Scp/17/9 Original: English Date: October 31, 2011
E SCP/17/9 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: OCTOBER 31, 2011 Standing Committee on the Law of Patents Seventeenth session Geneva, December 5 to 9, 2011 OPPOSITION SYSTEMS Document prepared by the Secretariat SCP/17/9 page 2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................3 I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................4 II. OVERVIEW OF OPPOSITION SYSTEMS...................................................................5 III. RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................7 IV. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK..................................................................13 V. EXAMPLES OF OPPOSITION PROCEDURES.........................................................14 VI. RELATED MECHANISMS..........................................................................................30 A. Re-examination Systems.....................................................................................30 B. Submission of Information by Third Parties .........................................................35 (i) Rationale and objectives ...............................................................................35 (ii) National/Regional laws..................................................................................36 ANNEX: STATISTICS ON OPPOSITION SCP/17/9 page 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Pursuant to the decision of the Standing -
Post-Grant Patent Invalidation in China and in the United States, Europe, and Japan: a Comparative Study
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 15 Volume XV Number 1 Volume XV Book 1 Article 5 2004 Post-Grant Patent Invalidation in China and in the United States, Europe, and Japan: A Comparative Study Haito Sun J.D. Candidate, Fordham University School of Law, 2006; Fish & Neave LLP, Patent Agent Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Haito Sun, Post-Grant Patent Invalidation in China and in the United States, Europe, and Japan: A Comparative Study, 15 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 273 (2004). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol15/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUN 1/25/2005 6:16 PM Post-Grant Patent Invalidation in China and in the United States, Europe, and Japan: A Comparative Study Haitao Sun∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 275 I. PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA AFTER 1978 ........... 278 A. Brief History of IPR Legislation in China ................... 278 B. The Patent Law of China; Patentability Requirements ............................................................... 279 C. Channels for IPR Dispute Resolution in China........... 283 II. POST-GRANT PATENT INVALIDATION IN CHINA ................... 285 A. History of Patent Opposition/Invalidation Provisions in the Patent Law ........................................................ -
Memorandum JUL 1 6 201D
Memorandum Subject Date Additional Quota Letters Received by July 15, 2010 (DFN: 630-08.2) JUL 1 6 201D To From Christine A. Sanncrud. Ph.D., Chief "Barbar• J.Illoockholdt, Chief Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section Regul• torn Section Office of Diverison Control Off cL rl Diversion Control On July 15. 2010, this section received your e-mail requesting a review of seventeen (17) quota applications from sixteen (16) registered manufacturers to determine if there arc any pending administrative/legal actions against these applicants and to advise ODE of the findings. ODOR conducted reviews (NADDIS, CSA, etc), as well as surveyed the responsible field offices for their input and recommendations. Provided below are the results and recommendations. QUOTA APPLICANTS wan NO ADVERSE OR DEROGATORY INFORMATIO N Novartis Consumer I lealth Lincoln (10345) (b)(4);(b)(7)(E) Baxter (10346) Generics Bidco li bda Vintage (10347) Noramco Delaware (10348) Pharmaceuticals International inc. (10349) Pharmedium (10351) Pharmedium (10352) Rhodes (10356) Bio-Pharm (10357) Patheon (10358) Patheon (10359) Watson (10361) B & B (10363) lospira. Inc. NC (10364) Epic Pharma (10366) Mallinckrodt I lobart (10367) Chemtos (10368) Vol. II Page 55 2 Per consultation with the field offices. DEA does not have sufficient grounds to limit, restrict. or deny quota requests from these registrants. Based on this information. ODG suggests that you proceed with the completion of the quota applications. If you have any questions pertaining to this information. please feel free to contact me (b)(6);(b)(7)( or SC C) (b)(6);(b)(7)(C) Vol. II Page 56 Memorandum Subject Date Additional Quota Letters Received as of July 19, 201() (DFN: 630-08.2) stir 2 8 2010,., To Fr ,./"./ Christine A. -
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America – Phrma
The Short-Term and Long-Term Competitive Impact of Authorized Generics A Report for the Federal Trade Commission October 28, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. LONG-TERM COMPETITIVE HARM IS UNLIKELY ................................................... 3 A. Unsupported Foreclosure Claims Have Been Made For Nearly Two Decades .................................................................................................................... 4 B. Marketplace Realities Undercut The Long-Tenn Foreclosure Theory .................... 7 1. Sales and Profitability Are Growing ........................................................... 7 2. Wall Street Valuations Are Growing ........................................................ 10 II. THE FTC PRICING ANALYSIS SHOWS $880 MILLION IN CONSUMER SAVINGS .......................................................................................................................... 14 III. CONSUMER SAVINGS SHOULD BE MEASURED USING WHOLESALE DATA AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE PRICES .............................................................. 17 A. The Wholesale Data Carries Far More Weight.. .................................................... 17 B. Average Drug Prices Should Be Volume-Weighted ............................................. 19 IV. -
Batten Down the Hatch[Es]! Restoring the Patent System’S Role Within the Pharmaceutical Industry
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 70 Issue 3 Article 14 2020 Batten down the Hatch[es]! Restoring the Patent System’s Role within the Pharmaceutical Industry Rocco Screnci Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rocco Screnci, Batten down the Hatch[es]! Restoring the Patent System’s Role within the Pharmaceutical Industry, 70 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 821 (2020) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol70/iss3/14 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 70·Issue 3·2020 Batten down the Hatch[es]! Restoring the Patent System’s Role within the Pharmaceutical Industry Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 821 I. The Patent System ..................................................................... 825 A. The Fundamentals: Why We Patent .................................................... 825 B. The Modern Patent Statute: A Rich Vision for Incentive-Theory Jurisprudence .................................................................................... 829 1. The Patent Application and its Roles ........................................... 830 2. A Vague Concept -
Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Paten
Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under P Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under P Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under P Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patents Drugs Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under P Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Patent DrugsDrug Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under P Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under Patent Drugs Under -
Clinical Research Services
Clinical Research Services Advancing the future of medicine through research. Who We Are Experience Clinical Research Services is a department within Clinical Research Services has been involved CHI St. Alexius Health in Bismarck, ND. We are fully in clinical research since 1987. Our professional dedicated to providing research support services staff has more than 180 years of combined to physicians within our region and the valued experience in clinical trials. We are committed patients they serve. to providing outstanding service to ensure the success of every project. CHI St. Alexius Health is a tertiary care facility affiliated with PrimeCare, a health group which Our involvement in inpatient and outpatient combines the most experienced, trusted, and phase II-IV clinical and device research studies has proven medical leaders in the area. PrimeCare is contributed substantially to the approval of new comprised of a network which includes more than drugs and treatments. You should carefully consider 190 physicians in private and institutional practice, both the benefits and the risks of participation including: CHI St. Alexius Health, Mid Dakota Clinic, before enrolling in a study. The Bone & Joint Center, and other affiliated area physicians. Many of these physicians are actively Previous clinical study trials: involved as investigators for clinical trials. • Oncology • Orthopaedic • Rheumatology • Diabetes Our clinical research team is committed to providing: • Neurology • Weight loss • Rapid study start-up • Cardiology • Pain • Pro-active patient enrollment • Urology • Men’s Health • Clean data submission • Gastroenterology • Women’s Health • Highly experienced principal • Infectious Disease • Medical Devices investigators • Pediatric • Initial training and continuing education for all support personnel Sponsors Patient Demographics Abbott Laboratories Characteristics of our patients include Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. -
11–15–00 Vol. 65 No. 221 Wednesday Nov. 15, 2000 Pages
11±15±00 Wednesday Vol. 65 No. 221 Nov. 15, 2000 Pages 68871±69236 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:42 Nov 14, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\15NOWS.LOC pfrm11 PsN: 15NOWS 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 The FEDERAL REGISTER is published daily, Monday through SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, PUBLIC Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. Subscriptions: Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Committee of Paper or fiche 202±512±1800 the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Superintendent of Assistance with public subscriptions 512±1806 Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official edition. General online information 202±512±1530; 1±888±293±6498 Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Paper or fiche 512±1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Assistance with public single copies 512±1803 Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 523±5243 Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 523±5243 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. -
POST-GRANT REVIEWS in the U.S. PATENT SYSTEM–DESIGN CHOICES and EXPECTED IMPACT by Bronwyn H
POST-GRANT REVIEWS IN THE U.S. PATENT SYSTEM–DESIGN CHOICES AND EXPECTED IMPACT By Bronwyn H. Hall† and Dietmar Harhoff‡ ABSTRACT Several policy review boards have advocated the introduction of post-grant patent review mechanisms in the U.S patent system. We dis- cuss to what extent “patent quality” has been deteriorating in the U.S. patent system and then consider the expected impact of post-grant review mechanisms as advocated by the policy review boards. We take a de- tailed look at the experience with the opposition mechanism at the Euro- pean Patent Office. Our results indicate that a properly designed U.S. post-grant review could generate high welfare gains. We discuss the de- sign choices faced by policy-makers in the United States and provide recommendations. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1 II. “PATENT QUALITY”.................................................................................................................3 A. Defining “Patent Quality”............................................................................................3 B. Consequences of Low Patent Quality ........................................................................4 III. PROBLEMS IN THE U.S. PATENT SYSTEM.............................................................................6 IV. REFORM PROPOSALS AND THE PROMISE OF POST -GRANT REVIEW MECHANISMS .....11 V. A LOOK AT THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE ..........................................................................14 -
Patents, Data Exclusivity, and the Development of New Drugs
A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Gaessler, Fabian; Wagner, Stefan Working Paper Patents, data exclusivity, and the development of new drugs Discussion Paper, No. 176 Provided in Cooperation with: University of Munich (LMU) and Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center Transregio 190: Rationality and Competition Suggested Citation: Gaessler, Fabian; Wagner, Stefan (2019) : Patents, data exclusivity, and the development of new drugs, Discussion Paper, No. 176, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München und Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Collaborative Research Center Transregio 190 - Rationality and Competition, München und Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/208076 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Patents, Data Exclusivity, and the Development of New Drugs Fabian Gaessler (MPI-IC Munich) Stefan Wagner (ESMT Berlin) Discussion Paper No. -
Dr. Richard Rozek
Dear Ms. Overstreet: I am interested in being considered for the vacancy on the Glynn Brunswick Memorial Hospital Authority. Per the instructions with the vacancy announcement, I attached a copy of my vita to the letter. I am an economist with a specialty in health care economics. I have worked on competition, regulation, contract, and tax issues in health care during my career in academic, federal government, and private sector positions. I have written articles on health care issues and testified in major health care litigations. I have owned a home on Jekyll Island since 1993. Please let me know if you need additional information. Sincerely, Richard P. Rozek, Ph.D. RICHARD P. ROZEK, PH.D. CONTACT INFORMATION Redacted Jekyll Island, GA 31527 Phone: 912 Redacted Redacted gmail.com BACKGROUND Dr. Rozek received a B.A. degree in Mathematics with honors from the College of St. Thomas, a M.A. degree in Mathematics from the University of Minnesota, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics from the University of Iowa. Dr. Rozek began his professional career as an Assistant Professor at the University of Pittsburgh where he taught courses in industrial organization, mathematical economics, and microeconomic theory. Dr. Rozek then worked for over six years in the Bureau of Economics at the Federal Trade Commission in a series of senior staff positions including Deputy Assistant Director for Antitrust. While at the FTC, Dr. Rozek evaluated antitrust and regulatory issues in electric and gas utilities, oil pipelines, soft drinks, for-profit and nonprofit hospitals, motion pictures, pharmaceuticals, and information industries.