FDA releases budget request as GPhA shows generic savings

On 7th May 2009, the FDA announced its budget request for fiscal year 2010. The agency has requested a budget of US$3.2 billion overall, representing an increase of 19% over the current FDA fiscal year budget. Much of the request focuses on two major initiatives for FY2010: Protecting America’s Food Supply and Safer Medical Products. However, the request also includes proposals for four new user fees; one of these relates to generic drugs. The issue of introducing generic drug user fees has been around for a while, and the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) responded to the proposal with the same views it has expressed when the issue has come round before. The organisation commented that the generic industry is open to user fees, but with the caveat that there would need to be guarantees that the fees would aid in the timely review and approval of generic applications.

Specifically, the GPhA has identified what it considers to be core issues, which it claims have been around for over a decade. These include the citizen petition process, scientific, regulatory and legal consultations, enhanced communication, more inspection resources and the accountability and structure of the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD). The organisation cites as an example that in 2007, the brand industry held 2,200 meetings with the FDA, yet the generic industry had only seven meetings, making the argument that unless the FDA and the industry communicate more effectively, generics will not get to consumers faster. The organisation added that generic applications that are subject to scientific, regulatory or legal consults can remain stuck in limbo for months, if not years, which again results in products being delayed entry to the market. The GPhA has acknowledged that the FDA needs more resources to review and approve generics, but argues that increasing resources alone will not help; instead, the agency also needs to tackle the underlying problem of timely consumer access. For its part, the FDA has released figures which show that the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has seen a dramatic increase in its workload, with the number of ANDAs almost doubling over the past five years, whilst its staffing levels have increased at a much slower rate. In FY2008, CDER approved or tentatively approved 598 applications, and received 830 ANDAs. This compared to 310 approvals or tentative approvals and 307 receipts in FY2001. Interestingly, the number of receipts in FY2008 was down slightly, compared to the 880 received in FY2007, marking the first dip since before FY2001.

It can surely be no coincidence that on the same day that the FDA released its budget request, the GPhA also released details of a report it commissioned from IMS Health showing that generics had saved the American healthcare system more than US$734 billion in the last decade. The report also showed around US$121 billion was saved in 2008 alone. The report was commissioned as part of efforts to mark the 25th anniversary of the passing of the Hatch-Waxman Act, but the timing and its message that generics save money, seems to be more aimed at pushing for an increase of funding for the FDA’s generic drugs function. Preferably, it seems, through tax money rather than user fees from the industry.

Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets

Ontario government takes action against generic firms

In late April, the Ontario government’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announced it was taking legal action against seven generic firms, along with a number of pharmacies and wholesalers, for allegedly massaging professional allowances by re-selling drugs. Professional allowances are monies that generic drug manufacturers pay pharmacies for buying their prescription drug products, and the Ontario government has alleged that a number of firms were involved in a scheme whereby pharmacies bought greater stocks than they needed, claiming the monies against the stock, then returning what was not needed to wholesalers, which then also claimed monies for the returned stock. The seven companies involved included Taro Pharmaceuticals, Cobalt Pharmaceuticals, Genpharm, Teva’s subsidiary, Novopharm, Pharmascience, Sandoz Canada and ratiopharm. In total, the seven received Rebate Penalty Orders worth C$3.5 million (US$3.0 million), with Taro penalised the least, at C$22,512.68, and Genpharm and Novopharm the most, at C$1,791,957.71 and C$1,202,958.88, respectively.

The Ontario government explained that the professional allowances system had been shaken up as part of changes made by Bill 102 to the legislation that governs Ontario’s publicly funded drug programmes. For the Ontario Drug Benefit market, manufacturers could provide and pharmacies receive up to 20% of generic drug product sales per pharmacy in professional allowances. The allowances must then be used for activities outlined in the regulations, such as patient care that benefits customers. There was no limit on the amount of professional allowances relating to the private market. Drug manufacturers are required to report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care the amount of professional allowances paid, and pharmacies the amount received. Pharmacies are also required to report on how the allowances are spent. Any professional allowance payment not meeting the regulated requirements would be regarded as a rebate, and prohibited. The Ministry reviewed these reports and found discrepancies between the figures being given by generic firms and those being given by pharmacies, and this led to a series of audits being carried out at 14 locations, including three generic drug firms, five wholesalers and six pharmacies.

According to local reports, manufacturers claimed to have paid C$332 million (US$284 million) in rebates, whilst pharmacies claimed to have received only C$145 million (US$124 million). In view of this, the decision to fine the seven generic firms just C$3.5 million in total and all parties involved C$33.8 million (US$28.9 million) surely does not serve as much of a disincentive.

Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets