Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

2009

Food and Drug Law

Incentives

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Does Misery Love Company - Evidence From Pharmaceutical Markets Before And After The Orphan Drug Act, Frank R. Lichtenberg, Joel Waldfogel Jan 2009

Does Misery Love Company - Evidence From Pharmaceutical Markets Before And After The Orphan Drug Act, Frank R. Lichtenberg, Joel Waldfogel

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The possibility that small populations would see few medications developed for their conditions has [...] led the U.S. Congress to pass the 1983 Orphan Drug Act ("ODA"), giving firms special incentives to develop drugs for diseases afflicting fewer than 200,000 persons per year.[...][U]under the Act, drug makers receive seven years of exclusive marketing upon FDA approval of newly-developed drugs qualifying as "orphan drugs"--i.e., drugs for disorders affecting fewer than 200,000 persons.[...]Together, [the] provisions (a) increase the effective market size; and (b) reduce fixed (sunk) costs. In doing so, the Act provides a natural experiment for measuring the impact of increased …


Pdufa And Initial U.S. Drug Launches, Mary K. Olson Jan 2009

Pdufa And Initial U.S. Drug Launches, Mary K. Olson

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In the 1970s and 1980s, many pharmaceutical firms launched new drugs abroad prior to gaining U.S. approval. Consequently, U.S. patients often faced delays in accessing important new medicines. High regulatory barriers to entry, such as a stringent regulation and a lengthy drug review process, contributed to this problem. This Article examines the impact of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), and subsequent increases in the speed of FDA review, on the likelihood of initial U.S. drug launches. These factors are hypothesized to lower regulatory barriers to entry in the U.S. pharmaceutical market. The results show that increased drug review …


Why Fdca Section 505(U) Should Not Concern Us Greatly, Kyle Faget Jan 2009

Why Fdca Section 505(U) Should Not Concern Us Greatly, Kyle Faget

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Among the many amendments found in the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA) is a provision at the end of the act, Section 505(u), which grants chiral switches five years of market exclusivity under certain circumstances. Prior to Congressional enactment of the FDAAA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to award new chemical entity (NCE) status to enantiomers of previously approved racemic mixtures. The FDA defines a new chemical entity ("NCE") as a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other application submitted under Section 505(b) of the …


Platitudes About Product Stewardship In Torts: Continuing Drug Research And Education, Lars Noah Jan 2009

Platitudes About Product Stewardship In Torts: Continuing Drug Research And Education, Lars Noah

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This Article focuses on one emerging aspect of tort litigation against pharmaceutical manufacturers that, if it gained traction, portends a dramatic (and potentially counterproductive) expansion in the prescription drug industry's exposure to liability. The traditional theories of products liability--mismanufacture, defective design, and inadequate warnings--no longer exhaust the potential obligations of sellers. In addition to increasingly popular claims of misrepresentation and negligent marketing, which seem more like extensions of the three defect categories than entirely novel theories, a growing chorus of commentators would impose on pharmaceutical manufacturers a broader duty to test and educate (aspects of what they call an obligation …