In Vermont, Iowa, and every other state across the country, people are fed up with the high cost of prescription drugs. Prices continue to skyrocket as companies making brand-name drugs restrict competition by refusing to share samples of their drugs with companies aiming to make generic versions or refusing to negotiate a shared safety protocol. This is an abuse of government regulations that are intended to protect patients and ensure drug safety.

These practices punish patients and worsen illnesses. Families, businesses, government programs, and other payers in the health care system must bear the added, unnecessary costs that accrue when a generic is shut out.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus. To get you started, enjoy 50% off your first 3 months!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • This bill was introduced almost a year ago and seems to have made no progress. Not sure why the Senators seem so upbeat about it.

  • The brand name producer of a drug was developed by them at their own expense, further, if the drug research does not yield a useful drug, then it is a financial loss. Then, when they finally get a useful, effective drug which saves lives, they get a patent on it so they can recover their losses and make a profit. All generic companies do is wait to get the formula and start making the drug with little overhead expenses. It’s like asking for something for nothing! If there were no brand name companies, you would never any new drugs for diseases that have no or poor treatments. No new effective drugs for diseases that have no cure, means you get that disease and you just suffer (or die). If the government prohibits them from charging enough to make a profit, they stop making new drugs and become a generic company like all the rest. Be Careful What You Ask For!!!!

    • And what about taxpayer funded university research creating new drugs which are then licensed by big pharma for big profits at the expense of the taxpayers who funded the research? These also cost huge sums and often fail but pharma gets to cherry pick the winners and taxpayers take the losses on both ends…..The profits are often way above reason simply because of greed and political influence….seems like other countries “get new drugs” and pay much less …..and then there is always that pesty ethical issue of letting people die or ruining their lives to protect shareholders or partners interests…. Robert Clive killed literally millions of ASIANS in the 18th century justifying it as his duty to EIC shareholders….funny how some things never change….where do YOU draw the line?

  • As much as I dislike the pharmaceutical companies practices, government is already too involved in business. This is like a car company being forced to provide full design specs to a competitor for “safety” concerns. Stay out of business’ way and you will get lower costs.

    • Take out lobbyists and you might have a “business way”….crony capitalism is not capitalism.

  • I support the CREATED bill, an even more important challenge wld be to make drugs in our own country so we are not suseptible to having needed drugs held hostage in global negotiations.

  • This is a crock. Why would any pharmaceutical company spend millions to billions developing new drugs if they had to then turn them over to other companies to copy as generics? Those new drugs don’t just fall like manna from the sky.

  • Please help with diabetic medicines. Humalog and Januvia I live on social security. Also my husbands Parkinsons medicine carba/levadopa all these are very expensive when I get in the donut hole about the end of May. Thank you

  • NO!, it’s time to STOP making DRUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nature has the answers to replace drugs. Drugs were never meant for the HUMAN or ANIMAL body! YOU can’t survive on Drugs!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Who said that we could survive on drugs? However, without drugs many of us would not survive at all.

    • You are a dreamer. People died from TB in past times because they did not know what caused it, let alone be able to treat it. Now it is treatable and people go on to live useful and productive lives. Otherwise, it may a case were they cannot live without the medical treatments!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • There is no free market in prescription drug sales with no equivalents. Consumers have to pay what the company demands because we do not have access to competitive products. Free markets require competition. I can choose to buy and OTC that is the brand name product, or a generic version. I cannot do so with a drug with no generic version. I am a consumer who is in favor of this bill. I admit to limited knowledge of all of the implications of the bill, but I do know something has to be done to stop continual increases in the prices of drugs that already exist, have not been changed in any way, but make a lot of money for companies that just want to gouge desperate patients. Revlimid is given as an example, but I have read of many, many more.

    • Please explain why a drug company should allow competitors to make a substitute generic drug after spending a fortune to develop new drugs.
      I’ve never heard of Revlimid; however, if the maker had not spent the money to develop it, there would not even be the possibility of a generic version somewhere down the road.

    • You are a dreamer. People died from TB in past times because they did not know what caused it, let alone be able to treat it. Now it is treatable and people go on to live useful and productive lives. Otherwise, it may a case were they cannot live without the medical treatments!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • This article is very misleading. 1) Yes, people are fed up with the high cost of health care, but we’re looking for a meaningful way to bring those costs down. The CREATES Act is not it. It only applies to a handful of drugs, many of which already have or will soon have generic equivalents. 2) Lower prices should not be a priority over patient safety. We’re talking about loosening restrictions on medications that could cause death and severe birth defects if not taken properly. 3) That poll showing that “84 percent of Americans support the CREATES Act” was funded by a biased organization that takes funding from a foundation with ties to the insurance and PBM industries. 4) This article mischaracterizes arguments that the CREATES Act would lead to frivolous lawsuits. No one is saying that trial attorneys would sue drug makers on their own accord. That’s nonsense. Trial attorneys would represent potential drug developers, including those that may not have the capacity to meet stringent safety protocols but who would lay claim to samples for bioequivalence testing regardless. 5) The article says “Another baseless argument we have heard is that counterfeit product developers who do not intend to develop a drug will take advantage of the CREATES Act in order to seeks damages from a brand-name company.” This sentence conflates several arguments against the CREATES Act. One argument is that unscrupulous parties may seek to obtain samples and then resell them on the black market. Many of the medications with REMS are controlled substances, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Another argument is that if the product developer is not able to meet the proper safety requirements after the product is FDA approved, the brand manufacturer can be held liable for injury to patients even if the patient is harmed by the generic drug. This is well established case law. In such a case, the brand and generic drugs could be pulled from the market, leaving patients who need these meds with no treatment. 6) True conservatives would not support the CREATES Act. They would be in favor of letting the free market do its job and allow private entities negotiate the sale of samples without government interference.

    • Nice to see such a fast response from our favorite PhRMA lobbyist! Too bad your owners are not AS fast when responding – or not responding at all – to generics’ requests for samples. And THAT is an issue for EVERY blockbuster drug, so don’t Lie and say it is only a “handful.”

    • “Concerned Consumer” seems to be parroting PhRMA/BIO. Is there a reason this comment is anonymous—indeed probably disingenuous—whereas the Senators signed their piece?

      “Let the free market do its job” Just wow. If we had a truly competitive free market, we would not be having this debate. And “without government interference.” Just wow in spades. Come on, “Concerned consumer” reveal yourself.

Your daily dose of news in health and medicine

Privacy Policy