New drug regulations will benefit brand name drug companies

'This is not the basis for sound public policy.' - James Clancy

Ottawa (15 May 2008) - The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) says proposed new regulations on patented medicines will largely benefit brand name drug companies and should be rejected.

NUPGE president James Clancy has written to Industry Canada to express concern over the proposals, published by the government on April 25. The changes would set aside the intent of a court ruling on the issue and tilt in favour of brand name companies over the interests of ordinary citizens, Clancy argues in a letter to Susan Bincoletto. director general of the department's marketplace framework policy branch.

"Unfortunately, the proposed regulations will result in increased prescription drug costs in Canada," he writes. "Indeed this is acknowledged in the Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement for the draft regulations."

Clancy said this quote was contained in the statement:

"The Government recognizes that one possible consequence of the proposed amendments is that some generic drug companies may not be able to enter the market with a generic version of a patented drug on the same date as had been expected if the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision were left to stand. While this could result in delayed savings to consumers and provincial drug plans, the Government considers these potential costs to be counter-balanced by the above-mentioned benefits …"

"Evergreening"

Clancy said the regulations were changed less than two years ago "in an attempt to stop the evergreening" of drug patents by brand name drug companies and the corresponding slowdown in cheaper generic drugs becoming available to patients.

Evergreening is the practice of filing multiple patents on the same basic drug and using them to repeatedly delay the introduction of equivalent generic alternatives. "The evergreening process was demonstrated to be forcing consumers to pay monopoly prices for longer than they should have," Clancy says.

"With these proposals the federal government is attempting to override a Supreme Court of Canada decision knowing full well that these amendments would increase health care costs and only benefit the brand name drug companies. This is not the basis for sound public policy. I urge your department to reject these proposed regulations," he added.

Clancy said many of the patented drugs are too expensive for consumers to use, forcing many Canadians to rely on hospitals and other facilities for treatment of illnesses.

"People who, with the proper medication, could be living at home comfortably are instead in hospital in order to ensure their access to medication. This serves to exacerbate the wait-time problem many Canadians face when trying to access health care services," he noted.

"Furthermore, rising drug costs are the number one problem for health care spending in this country. These skyrocketing costs are largely the result of new medications— that is more expensive drugs—being brought on the market. The vast majority are not any better than already existing medications," the letter argues.

"Access to affordable prescription medications is vital to the sustainability of Canada’s Medicare system. High drug costs both exacerbate the wait-time problem in Canada and represent an unsustainable burden on health care spending. Our federal government should be taking every step necessary to ensure that access to affordable medications is a top priority." NUPGE