FDA Working to Lift Barriers to Generic Drug Competition

By: Scott Gottlieb, M.D.

Too many patients are being priced out of the medicines they need. While FDA doesn’t have a direct role in drug pricing, we can take steps to help address this problem by facilitating increased competition in the market for prescription drugs through the approval of lower-cost, generic medicines.

Dr. Scott GottliebOver the last decade alone, competition from safe and effective generic drugs has saved the health care system about $1.67 trillion. When generics are dispensed at the pharmacy, the immediate savings to each of us are clear. We could see even greater cost savings if we helped more safe and effective generic drugs get to market sooner, after patent and statutory exclusivity periods have lapsed, by addressing some of the scientific and regulatory obstacles to generic competition across the full range of FDA-approved drugs. These barriers may delay and, in some cases, ultimately deny patient access to more affordable drugs.

That’s why we’re working on a Drug Competition Action Plan. As part of this effort, today, we’re announcing in the Federal Register our intent to hold a public meeting on July 18, 2017, to solicit input on places where FDA’s rules – including the standards and procedures related to generic drug approvals – are being used in ways that may create obstacles to generic access, instead of ensuring the vigorous competition Congress intended.

Innovation in pharmaceutical development is essential because it creates new and sometimes life-saving therapies. But access to lower-cost alternatives, once patent and exclusivity periods lapse, also is critical to the nation’s health.

We know that sometimes our regulatory rules might be “gamed” in ways that may delay generic drug approvals beyond the time frame the law intended, in order to reduce competition. We are actively looking at ways our rules are being used and, in some cases, misused.

One example of such gaming is the increasing unavailability of certain branded products for comparative testing. To perform the studies required to develop a generic alternative to a branded drug, a generic sponsor generally needs 1,500 to 3,000 doses of the originator drug. I understand that generic sponsors are willing to buy these products at fair market value; but, in some cases, branded companies may be using regulatory strategies or commercial techniques to deliberately try to block a generic company from getting access to testing samples.

This might occur, for example, when branded companies might use restrictions they place in their commercial contracts or their agreements with distributors to make it hard for intermediaries in the drug supply chain to sell the drugs to generic drug developers.

We also see problems accessing testing samples when branded products are subject to limited distribution – whether the company has voluntarily adopted limitations on distribution, or the limitations have been imposed as part of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, a program that FDA implements to help ensure the safe use of certain drugs. I have been made aware that, in some of those cases, branded sponsors may use these limited distribution arrangements, whether or not they are REMS-related, as a basis for blocking generic firms from accessing the testing samples they need.

Besides limiting access to testing samples, some branded companies may be using the statutory default requirement to have a single shared REMS across both the branded and generic versions of a drug as a way to block generic entry. They might prolong negotiations with the generic firms over the implementation of these single shared systems, which could delay the entry of safe and effective generic drugs onto the market.

I want to take steps to address these concerns, to make sure that we are facilitating appropriate competition in circumstances where Congress intended. The forthcoming public meeting is intended to solicit public comment to inform us of circumstances where generic competition may be thwarted by these and other techniques.

As we solicit additional information, we also are going to be looking at policy and programmatic changes to address these issues. Some of these steps may be actions we can take by using our own authorities more forcefully. Other steps might involve our need to collaborate with sister agencies.

We’re also going to be looking hard at how best to coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission in identifying and publicizing practices that the FTC finds to be anti-competitive. FDA is not the FTC. It is the FTC’s responsibility to prevent anticompetitive business practices. But Congress set out certain laws that are meant to strike a careful balance between pharmaceutical innovation and access to lower cost generic products, and FDA has an important responsibility to enforce those laws in a manner that adheres to the balance struck by Congress.

We’ll be unveiling additional aspects of our larger Action Plan and providing updates, as these initial elements are implemented. I’m confident that these actions and the dedicated work of the outstanding staff in our generic drug program will help to address the issues patients are facing today when they’re priced out of buying the drugs they need. At the meeting on July 18 we want to hear from the public about ways our current rules may not be having their intended effects, and where current policies are falling short in ensuring the careful balance between new innovation and patient access.

Our goal is to broaden access to safe and effective generic drugs that can improve access to medicines and help consumers lower their health care costs. As in all of the things we do, we will steadfastly maintain FDA’s gold standard for rigorous, science-based regulation.

Over the past five years our generic drug program staff has evolved and grown remarkably, while implementing the first generic drug user fee program. The staff has demonstrated that they can rise to new challenges and they have my full support. Their hard work will serve as a strong foundation for the program as it moves forward. I want the policy framework they operate under to be as efficient, fair, and robust as the review program that they’re operating.

Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Follow Commissioner Gottlieb on Twitter @SGottliebFDA

Changing course: A new approach to opioid pain medication at FDA

By: Robert M. Califf, M.D.

As a doctor, I have a first-hand understanding of the important and legitimate need for powerful medication to help people deal with chronic or severe pain. If you have had a family member or loved one touched by a serious illness or injury, you understand it too. You know how tough it can be to see them try to endure pain that can’t be touched by anything you can get over the counter.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., MACC, FDA's Commissioner of Food and Drugs

But as all of you know, more Americans now die every year from drug overdoses than they do in motor vehicle crashes. Opioids were involved in 28,648 deaths in 2014, according to the CDC.

The FDA is deeply concerned about this growing epidemic, and I am personally disturbed by the toll it has taken in communities across the country. It’s an issue I’ve been involved with for years as an academic, having overseen the NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trial Network, which was involved in some of the early medication assisted treatment studies.

After seeing the dependence and mortality numbers continue to rise and hearing from voices who care about this issue, I asked our folks to take a hard look at whether we’re doing everything we can to ensure that we’re appropriately taking into account the public health crisis that confronts us in the context of the role we play in ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs.

The conclusion of that comprehensive assessment was that we can do more.

So we are announcing a change in course in how our agency approaches opioids – their approval, their labeling and their prescribing. We are going to fundamentally re-examine the risk-benefit paradigm for opioids and ensure that we consider their wider public health effects.

To that end, we have developed a comprehensive action plan to take concrete steps toward reducing the impact of opioid abuse on American families and communities.

There are four main pillars to the plan.

First, we’re going to be more transparent and open in the approval process for this category of drugs. Starting today, the FDA will convene an expert advisory committee before approving any new drug application for an opioid that is not in an abuse-deterrent formulation (ADF).

Additionally, we’re going to engage the Pediatric Advisory Committee to make recommendations on pediatric opioid labeling before any new labeling is approved.

Importantly, the advisory committee process is going to provide opportunity for public input, which is going to help us better understand and answer the concerns people have about these drugs.

We have also engaged the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on how to take into account our evolving understanding of the risks of opioids, not only to the patient but also the risks of misuse by other persons who obtain them. The goal is to formally incorporate the broader public health impact of opioid abuse in approval decisions. And in March, we will seek advice from the Agency’s Science Board to reassess the risk-benefit approval framework for opioid use. The results of these efforts will be made public.

Second, we’re going to improve our communication with the medical community about these drugs. That starts with enhancing safety labeling. Our goal is to provide better information to doctors about the risks of these drugs and how to safely prescribe them. We’re developing changes to immediate release opioid labeling that will bring it more in line with the extended-release/long-acting labeling that occurred in 2013.

After reviewing the existing requirements and hearing recommendations from an advisory committee, we’re also going to update our Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program requirements for opioids. We need to increase the number of prescribers who receive training on pain management and improve the safe prescribing of opioids to decrease inappropriate prescribing.

That effort will complement work being done at the Department level and at the CDC to help ensure that opioids are prescribed appropriately. We believe that this is a key component of ending this public health crisis. The more than 250 million prescriptions for these types of pain killers in 2012 – enough for every adult in the U.S. to have a bottle of pills – is clear evidence of the work ahead of us.

Third, we’re going to work to improve the information that’s available about opioid use. We’re going to require drugmakers to strengthen post-market analysis of these drugs. Today, that information, especially about long-term use, is lacking. We need more and better evidence on the risks of misuse and abuse associated with long-term opioid use and to better understand predictors of addiction, among other issues.

Finally, we’re going to focus efforts on approving drugs that have the potential to help mitigate the crisis. That means spurring the development of promising generics with abuse deterrent formulations. The FDA will issue draft guidance with its recommendations for the approval standards for generic abuse-deterrent formulations. We believe the availability of less costly generic products should accelerate prescribers’ update of abuse deterrent formulations.

And we’re going to work to improve access to naloxone, which is effective at treating overdoses. The FDA is reviewing options, including over-the-counter availability, to make naloxone more accessible. That work builds on FDA’s recent approval of intranasal naloxone.

What I’ve just described is a change in course – a framework for how FDA can better do its part to confront the opioids epidemic. In the coming weeks and months, we’re going to further develop these plans and continue to fill in the details for each initiative I’ve described.

But it’s time for us to act – to take the first steps toward changing how we do business and addressing this problem.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., previously FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco, became FDA’s Commissioner of Food and Drugs on Feb. 25, 2016