Two Washington lawmakers want the Federal Trade Commission to examine whether so-called pay-to-delay deals are preventing biosimilars from reaching Americans sooner than the drugs would otherwise and, consequently, are increasing costs for the health care system.

In a letter to the FTC, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) argued there is reason for concern that the same controversial tactic used to thwart the arrival of lower-cost generics is being extended to biosimilars.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT Plus is a premium subscription that delivers daily market-moving biopharma coverage and in-depth science reporting from a team with decades of industry experience.

What's included?

  • Authoritative biopharma coverage and analysis, interviews with industry pioneers, policy analysis, and first looks at cutting edge laboratories and early stage research
  • Subscriber-only networking events and panel discussions across the country
  • Monthly subscriber-only live chats with our reporters and experts in the field
  • Discounted tickets to industry events and early-bird access to industry reports

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Is there an issue here or not? Is there even a story? The headline screams about harmful “pay-to-delay” deals, and then dredges up a single example that isn’t an example at all, if the statements from AbbVie and Amgen are to be believed. So the issue is really about government thinking it has the right to interfere in normal day-to-day business because it concerns health care? Lines drawn are often murky and shift as administrations come and go. So when is it acceptable for “lawmakers” to screw with businesses making deals, which is how this world turns, folks. That’s the story. Or am I missing something?

    • Hi Rod,

      Thanks for writing in. First, only two examples were cited because that was what the lawmakers noted in their letter to the FTC, although the settlements were rather prominent, given these involved such a huge-selling drug for which AbbVie has created a patent thicket.

      Beyond that, you raise a fair point about government interference, assuming there is nothing more to the agreements than what AbbVie says.

      But I’ll play devil’s advocate and suggest that we shouldn’t take the company’s word at face value and, instead, have a look at the agreements, in the event some other consideration was involved. If not, then so be it.

      But as Carrier noted, we don’t really know all the details. And many of these negotiated patent settlements were problematic enough for the Supreme Court to encourage the FTC to continue its scrutiny.

      Feel free to keep the conversation going.

      ed at pharmalot

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy