Abbott faces more litigation over AIDS drug

[Celebration]

http://www.physorg.com/news137041791.html

The lawsuits, all filed in Oakland federal court, accuse Abbott of raising the price of the HIV-fighting Norvir to illegally stifle competition and boost sales of its own alternative, Kaletra. Embarrassing internal communications between executives plotting how to thwart their rivals in the lucrative HIV drug cocktail market have been made public in the process.

................snip..................................

The central allegation by all plaintiffs is that Abbott raised the price of its pioneering drug Norvir to illegally dominate the market.

Norvir is a key ingredient - a "booster" - in many multi-drug cocktails made by rival companies that HIV patients take to keep the disease at bay.

When Abbott increased Norvir's cost, it effectively raised the prices of its competitors' drugs. At the same time, Abbott kept the price the same for its own multi-drug pill, Kaletra, which contains Norvir.

Corporate documents produced in court showed Abbott executives hoped that the price increase in 2003 would boost sales of Kaletra at the expense of two rival drugs coming on the market that year. The documents also showed that executives were considering other options to persuade doctors to prescribe Kaletra rather than competing drugs.

[sui generis]

1. of two minds here

1. I call bullshit - since it is used as a booster unless it is incorporated directly into a third party product and not taken as a separate pill, the allegation that it caused the competitors to raise their prices is absurd.

2. Unless they are "colluding" with other pharma to raise prices across the board, they are perfectly all right to raise their prices.

3. If cheap AIDS drugs are what is required, price controls are not the method (hold on, don't explode yet).

If our government is interested in providing cheap AIDS drugs to PWA's (American ones) we have to consider a very unusual step: buy the damn rights to the drug. If it's part of a cocktail or not it can be produced and sold without trying to recoup R&D and marketing expense on a line of business item, making it truly cheap and benefitting everyone.

Having played devils advocate now, here's what I really think: big pharma is inexcusably predatory in its pricing on new drugs. Restylane eye drops -- $800 - $1200 dollars a month and it's not even a "live saving" AIDS drug. It's one thing to cut someone off their eye drops because they can't afford to pay their premiums any more, but it's life and death for some AIDS patients when you cut them off their meds.

Whatever we are doing now to make life easier for people who rely on drugs to stay alive is not enough.

[Celebration]

2. your points

#1 I am pretty sure that this has to do with the "cocktails." Abbott owns the rights to a key ingredient to all cocktails, and by raising the price of this ingredient, they are causing competitors to have to raise their prices to be able to afford the ingredient. Meanwhile, the price of their own cocktail drug is lower, but still high. At least, that is the way I am reading it.

#2 I am not sure about this from a legal point of view. They seem to have lost a first round.

#3 I hope that one of these supposed cures will work out, because I am not sure our bankrupt system can afford the drugs, or afford to buy the patents.