Debbie Dingell: “I rise to oppose passage of H.R. 2887, a bill that would continue a program that grants drug companies an additional six…”

“I rise to oppose passage of H.R. 2887, a bill that would continue a program that grants drug companies an additional six month period of market exclusivity, if they conduct tests on the use of their drugs for children. Make no mistake; there is complete agreement on the part of all Members that improved testing and labeling of prescription drugs for use in children is a good thing. The only question for debate is how to accomplish that important public health objective. In 1997, when this law was enacted, the economy was healthier and drugs were cheaper. Even then, I expressed concern about the detrimental impact this provision could have the availability of generic drugs. It is now my view that we made a mistake in enacting the pediatric exclusivity law. First, it establishes a voluntary ``incentive'' for activity that should instead simply be required. Second, assuming that we choose to provide an incentive, the exclusivity program is more expensive, less equitable, and less efficient than any number of alternatives. Let there be no doubt. The central feature of this bill, exclusivity, is about further increasing the profits of an already bloated industry--an industry that does not seem to be able to moderate its pricing practices even as it increasingly burdens its customers, American consumers, and taxpayers. For example, one drug, Prilosec, earned an additional $1.4 billion during the six months of additional monopoly pricing that AstraZeneca enjoyed.…”