As Monica Bertagnolli, U.S. President Joe Biden’s choice to be the next NIH director, meets with senators to gather support for her confirmation, she’s sure to be grilled by some of them about her stance on whether the agency can march in on drug patents based on a drug’s list price. Up until now, NIH directors have said no. A change in that policy, along with nearly flatline NIH spending and other new government initiatives, could impact private investment in drug R&D by increasing the cost of research and lowering the return on investment.
While the U.S. continues to call out other countries for weak enforcement of intellectual property rights, trade secret theft and forced technology transfers in the life sciences sector, some companies in the sector claim similar things are happening in the U.S. In its 2023 Special 301 Report, released April 26, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) noted “the growing need for trading partners to provide effective protection and enforcement of trade secrets.”
While Moderna Inc. CEO Stéphane Bancel was the one on the hot seat at a March 22 hearing before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, biopharma profitability in general, and capitalism itself, came under fire as committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) railed about corporate greed in the sector.
With its focus on transformative high-risk, high-reward research to drive biomedical breakthroughs, the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) may be a good concept, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of increased investment in basic research at the NIH, according to the bipartisan leadership of U.S. House appropriators.
Policymakers shouldn’t look to march-in rights as a simple solution to make medical products more affordable, according to experts speaking at an Information Technology & Innovation Foundation discussion on how using the march-in provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act as price controls would threaten America’s research universities.
There’s nothing like beginning-of-the-year price increases to turn up the heat on the prescription drug pricing debate in the U.S. This year is no exception. Citing a mean price increase of 5.1% on brand drugs in the first 25 days of 2022, 13 Democratic lawmakers, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), wrote this week to Steven Ubl, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, demanding an explanation for those hikes.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra is getting more pressure to take the unprecedented step of marching in on the patent rights protecting Astellas Pharma Inc.’s prostate cancer drug, Xtandi (enzalutamide), because of its U.S. price. Referencing the provision under the Bayh-Dole Act that allows federal agencies to march in on licensed patents stemming from federally funded research when the products are not available to the public on “reasonable terms,” a dozen Democratic congressional members wrote to Becerra Feb. 8 urging him to move forward on the Xtandi patents.
With so much ire in Congress directed toward U.S. prescription drug prices in 2019, it’s not surprising that prices remained relatively stable that year. That’s not to say there weren’t price hikes. In its second report on unsupported price increases, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) identified nine of the 100 top-selling drugs that had list price increases more than double the rate of medical inflation in 2019 and that accounted for the largest increases in U.S. spending on drugs.
New data show Johnson & Johnson’s Erleada (apalutamide) and Xtandi (enzalutamide) from Pfizer Inc. and Astellas Pharma Inc. both prolonged overall survival in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).