On the recordJuly 16, 2002
I was also disturbed by the testimony of the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission before the Senate Commerce Committee. He testified there were a number of examples where the branded and generic drug manufacturer actually conspired to game the system and attempted to restrict competition beyond what the Hatch- Waxman Act intended. One case cited in the chairman's testimony involved the producer of a heart medication which in early 1996 brought a lawsuit for patent and trademark infringement against the generic manufacturer. This is what happened. Instead of asking the generic company to pay damages, the brand name manufacturer offered a settlement to pay the generic company more than $880 million in return for keeping the generic drug off the market. So the brand name manufacturer essentially conspired with the generic manufacturer and paid off the generic manufacturer to keep the cheaper generic alternative from coming to the market. The consequences for consumers were considerable. This heart medication, which treats high blood pressure, chest pains, and heart disease, costs about $73 a month but the generic alternative would have cost only $32 a month. The compromise legislation that we will soon consider will make cost-effective generic drugs more available by restoring the original intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act and by closing the loopholes that are delaying competition and slowing the entry of generics into the marketplace.
Source
govinfo.gov




