Welcome to the News Room

On numbers and access to medicines

Posted by:

Will the proposed Preserve Access to Affordable Generics (PGGA) Act actually generate the $4.8 billion savings over 10 years that the Congressional Budget Office suggests it will? How realistic are its assumptions about generic competition or healthcare costs over the next ten years?

The CBO’s savings estimate of a new bill restricting the use of patent settlement agreements which reward generic manufacturers for delaying market entry and avoid litigation under the ANDA approval pathway is exaggerated. It assumes that savings from increasing generic competition would outweigh the savings that would have otherwise been generated from the introduction of innovative pharmaceutical products. In doing so, it makes key assumptions about the behaviour of both the generic and research-based pharmaceutical industries which do not capture the full reality. Therefore, estimates on the savings to healthcare spending as a result of banning so-called “pay for delay” agreements are likely overstated.

For further analysis from Pugatch Consilium on this issue, see: On numbers and access to medicines


About the Author:

Rachel specialises in biomedical and energy-related innovation as well as international innovation policy. She has particular experience in sector-specific trend mapping, survey building and benchmarking of intellectual property environments. Rachel’s work focuses on Europe, with special emphasis on the UK and Spain, and she speaks fluent Spanish. She gained direct experience with UK innovation policy while interning with the UK’s then Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
  Related Posts
  • No related posts found.