For those wondering if Hillary Clinton's feud with the pharmaceutical industry in general, and with Turing Pharma's Martin Shkreli in particular, is over we just got the answer: it is only just getting started.
It was one month ago that the Democratic presidential candidate released an ad slamming the infamous Martin Shkreli who made waves in early September, when an NYT piece focused first on his, than on Valeant's "astronomical" price increases, something which prompted us to conclude that the pain for biotechs is nowhere near done.
As Shkreli's nemeis Fierce Pharma [7]reported then, Clinton's campaign managers told MSNBC they're continuing to focus on Shkreli because "the Turing pharmaceutical story is a winning issue for the candidate because it's understandable to real people and impacts people's lives." It also helps to reinforce Clinton's projected image as a "fighter," according to MSNBC.
In a Facebook Q&A on Monday, Clinton responded to questions about her stance and its impact on the industry. One woman asked about the plan, noting the fact that biotech stocks fell after her comments last week.
Clinton responded, "My plan actually encourages more investment in innovation and research, not less. So that should be a win-win for businesses and consumers. Biotech companies working on life-saving breakthroughs won't have anything to fear from my plan. But if you're price-gouging American families and jacking up costs for no good reason, I'm going to hold you accountable."
Clinton later called out Shkreli by name and then lumped in other drug companies, writing: "So Mr. Shkreli, what's it going to be? Do the right thing. Lower the cost today to its original price. There are other drug companies gouging Americans with higher prices than they charge other people around the world. We want to reward innovation, but right now consumers don't know if they are buying value or simply subsidizing high profits."
Then Clinton goes into a rundown of her proposals. "Force drug manufacturers to justify their prices, make sure they add real value. Require the largest drug manufacturers to invest a minimum amount in R&D. And--a new idea to chew on--let's explore using some of these new research funds to invest directly in producing generic competitors where none exists."
As Beth Bulik noted, the renewed attack is having peripheral effects on pharma companies that are doing real research and development, versus the smaller number that, like Turing, are snapping up old drugs and hiking prices.
Of course, there is little mention of how the broken US healthcare model, starting with Medicare and continuing through Obamacare of which Hillary is a fervent supporter have enabled not only Valeant and Turing, but the biotech space in general to boost prices without much if any public response, until now.
In any event, unable to make much policy headway elsewhere, and desperate to distract from the relentless focus on her own email scandal, moments ago Reuters reported that Clinton has sent a letter to the FTC for recommendations on "changing laws to prevent anticompetitive practices", with a focus on Turing which has become a poster child for all that is wrong with the US specialty pharma industry, and the pharmaceutical industry in general.
- IN LETTER, CLINTON ASKS FTC FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHANGING LAWS TO PREVENT ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES
- US DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CLINTON URGES FDA, FTC TO REVIEW TURING, PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
More from Reuters:
In her letter to the FDA, Clinton said that Turing has still not "meaningfully lowered the price" and its decision to "artificially increase the price" exploited vulnerable patients dependent on the drug, which is often used by those with compromised immune systems.
"The FDA should expedite any pending reviews, and encourage applications for review, of other generic alternatives to Daraprim," Clinton wrote.
In her letter to the FTC, Clinton acknowledged the commission has only "limited authority to address price gouging when it is the result of unilateral action in a market with no competition," but urges it to examine both the industry overall and Turing specifically.
"I believe it would be a great service to the Congress and the Administration if the FTC would study and make recommendations on whether and how our laws might be amended to address this problem," Clinton wrote, offering an indication of how she might attempt to overhaul pharmaceutical practices if elected president in November 2016.
Clinton also asked the FTC to investigate whether Turing's decision to increase Daraprim's cost amounts to the type of anticompetitive behavior the agency can regulate. Drug prices are also being scrutinized by Democrats in Congress and U.S. prosecutors. Most pharmaceutical companies regularly raise prices, saying it reflects the drugs' value in the market.
The Daraprim price increase was unusual because it was so large. Shkreli defended the steep hike in interviews, saying the company would assist needy patients, that the new price was still below comparable medicines and that the profits from Daraprim's sale would be channeled into developing new drugs.
Clinton last month unveiled a plan for a $250 monthly cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs and other measures to stop what she calls "price gouging" by pharmaceutical companies.
In other words, Clinton releases a letter to an organization which she admits has "limited authority to address price gouging when it is the result of unilateral action in a market with no competition" but does so any way. Why? For populist brownie points of course.
For now the biotech sector is completely ignoring this latest shot across the bow by Hillary, one which "threatens" the involvement of a toothless FTC, and was up 1% on the day, probably confident that all it will take to quash this particular scandal is for the biotech lobby to pay a $250,000 speech fee to Bill or Chelsea and all will be forgiven.
* * *
The reaction...
[8]
