fbpx

fda

How liability lawsuits drive up drug prices, stifle innovation, and harm patients

A single drug can cost up to 2 million dollars per treatment. In the light of COVID-19, patient groups and activists have been using the crisis of the moment to call for capping drug and vaccine prices and cracking down on barriers to access for patients. In developing countries, large parts of drug prices are caused by tariffs, taxes, and other regulatory barriers. The United States, on the other hand, has the highest per-capita drug expenditure and drug prices in the world.

Bringing a drug to the US market is usually critical for a company to recoup the roughly 2 billion dollars of development costs per successfully launched medicine. At the same time, the country’s unique legal liability and injury system (called tort law) leads to higher drug prices without necessarily creating benefits for patients. Once a drug has passed the rigorous approval process demonstrating safety and efficacy to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it is still subject to various liability laws at the state level.

In the last two decades, Pfizer set aside a whopping 21 billion dollars for settlements following tort lawsuits against the diet drug Fen-Phen. Those who were harmed by the drug were able to seek legal recourse. That said, thousands and thousands of people who were not harmed by the drug were also able to seek compensation. So much so that it is assumed that at least 70% of the payouts went to claimants who weren’t harmed at all by the drug.

Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay 8 billion dollars to one patient for side effects caused by the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. These are just a few examples of a plethora of multi-billion-dollar payments drug companies have been compelled to make after being dragged to court, despite them being deemed safe by the FDA.

Patient advocates who are passionate about lowering drug prices in the USA should take a serious look at liability laws and how their misuse inflates prices. Abolishing liability beyond FDA requirements could reduce drug prices in the United States by 12 to 120 billion dollars a year and therefore give many more patients access to medicines. 

In 2019, US patients spent a total of $360 billion on prescription drugs. Between 3 and 30% of this amount could be freed up for other treatments or price cuts if liability rules for FDA-approved drugs would be reformed. This change might seem radical, but it is what Congress has approved for FDA-approved medical devices. A similar preemption was extended to vaccines in the late 1980s via the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Another impact of lawsuits following product withdrawals of FDA-approved drugs is that they negatively affect new investments in development. Pfizer’s settlement for Fen-Phen alone could have been used to bring 10-15 new innovative and life-saving drugs to patients.

Rather than using these financial resources for more research and development, or to lower drug prices, pharmaceutical manufacturers have to fight law firms who enrich themselves by abusing the US tort system. Tort law on top of FDA regulation is not just stifling innovation, but also an expensive way to compensate for the harm caused to patients. Paul H. Rubin suggests that the costs of settlement for the legal process account for half of the total settlement fees. Reducing this burden could increase the speed of new drugs being developed and reduce their price. Critics of tort reform will say that changing liability rules will endanger patients, but that’s far from the truth. A 2007 study shows that tort law reform in some states led to a total of 24,000 fewer deaths due to price reductions and the arrival of new innovative drugs. That’s something to keep in mind.

As long as we keep existing tort law on top of the FDA approval framework, consumers are being de facto forced to pay a massive markup on drugs in order to get insured against potential side effects. This is a very expensive and inefficient way of insuring patients against harm. 

A smarter way of designing such a compensation scheme is to either expand the vaccine compensation scheme to pharmaceuticals or to allow consumers to personally purchase insurance against such damages. This could, for instance, be supplementary insurance on top of the patient’s existing health insurance plans. Such a system would allow patients who opt-in much lower fees than the existing mandatory tort law system.

Exempting drugs from state tort law would be an easy step to reduce drug prices without putting patients under more risk. American patients would save billions a year and be able to access more treatments than they can currently. This will lead to a net benefit for patients and the health of the nation. Why not give it a try?

Common Ground Will Rescue Us From E-cigarette and Vape Wars

CONTACT: Jeff Stier Senior Fellow Consumer Choice Center jstier@consumerchoicecenter.org Common Ground Will Rescue Us From E-cigarette and Vape Wars WASHINGTON – As the midterm elections wrap up across the country, the FDA is readying its new action plan concerning e-cigarettes. Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, offers these simple steps to follow if the FDA […]

FDA’s Possible Maximum Nicotine Mandate Could Be Dangerous For Consumers

LUND REPORT: The Consumer Choice Center’s Senior Fellow Jeff Stier criticized the move in his official submission to the FDA, stating that the FDA is seeking science to back up its policy, rather than crafting policy based on science. Stier explained “It seems that FDA is pushing a policy agenda and looking for science to support it. Shouldn’t […]

Ban would impair FDA plan

TOBACCO REPORTER: “Yet,” according to the Center’s senior fellow Jeff Stier (pictured), “California law already prohibits the sale of all e-cigarettes to anyone under 21. As such, the ordinance would change the legal status of the sale of flavored e-cigarettes to adults exclusively.” Stier is calling on the FDA to “speak out about how a […]

Industry Reacts to FDA’s Vapor Marketing Enforcement Plan

CONVENIENCE STORE NEWS: Jeff Stier, senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, applauded the FDA’s efforts, and said that responsible regulation is possible while still offering adult consumers an alternative to cigarettes that significantly reduces the harm from smoking.

Winston-Salem Journal Editorial Quotes Consumer Choice Center

WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL: Plus, “The FDA concedes that a ban on today’s cigarettes could have significant unintended consequences, leading to compensatory smoking, where smokers inhale more dangerous chemicals in an effort to get the nicotine they crave,” according to Jeff Stier, senior fellow with the advocacy group Consumer Choice Center.

The Health 202: Who knew? A top Trump conservative is aggressively taking on tobacco

WASHINGTON POST: Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center criticized the FDA’s move, saying the proposal puts policy before science.

The FDA is working to reduce nicotine in cigarettes

YNET: Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, an American non-profit organization that promotes the public’s interest in health and environmental issues, and a world expert on smoking damage said: “The FDA announcement is well-intentioned but misses the mark.”

Rejection Of Right To Try Bill Is Cruel And Inhumane

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: David Clement North American Affairs Manager Consumer Choice Center david@consumerchoicecenter.org   Rejection Of Right To Try Bill Is Cruel And Inhumane Washington DC – Yesterday, the House rejected a bill that would have given terminally ill patients the right to experimental medicines. The bill required 2/3rds support but failed to reach that mark having […]

Scroll to top