Supporting Statement
Access to medicines, especially costly specialty drugs, is the subject of consistent and widespread public debate in the U.S. A 2021 Rand Corporation analysis concluded that U.S. prices for branded drugs were nearly 3.5 times higher than prices in 32 OECD member countries.[1] The Kaiser Family Foundation has “consistently found prescription drug costs to be an important health policy area of public interest and public concern.”[2]
This high level of concern has driven policy responses. The Inflation Reduction Act empowers the federal government to negotiate some drug prices.[3] State measures, including drug price transparency legislation, copay caps, and Medicaid purchasing programs, have also been adopted.[4] The House Committee on Oversight and Reform (the “Committee”) launched a far-reaching investigation into drug pricing in January 2019.[5]
Intellectual property protections on branded drugs play an important role in maintaining high prices and impeding access. When patent protection on a drug ends, generic manufacturers can enter the market, reducing prices. But branded drug manufacturers may try to delay generic competition by extending their exclusivity periods.
Among the abuses described in the Committee’s December 2021 report is construction of a “patent thicket,” which consists of many “secondary patents covering the formulations, dosing, or methods of using, administering, or manufacturing a drug”; they are granted after the drug’s primary patent, covering its main active ingredient or molecule, has been granted.[6] In June 2022, citing the impact of patent thickets on drug prices, a bipartisan group of Senators urged the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to “take regulatory steps to . . . eliminate large collections of patents on a single invention.”
Pfizer sells Lyrica, a branded pain management and epilepsy drug. According to the Committee’s report, 69 patents have been granted on Lyrica, which extended Pfizer’s exclusivity period to 32 years. Pfizer raised the price of Lyrica by 155% between 2013 and 2019, when its exclusivity period on the immediate release formulation of Lyrica ended.[7]
In our view, a process that considers the impact of extended exclusivity periods on patient access would ensure that Pfizer considers not only whether it can apply for secondary and tertiary patents but also whether it should do so. A more thoughtful process could, we believe, bolster Pfizer’s reputation and help avoid regulatory blowback resulting from high drug prices and perceptions regarding abusive patenting practices.
[1]  https://www.rand.org/news/press/2021/01/28.html
[2]  https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/public-opinion-on-prescription-drugs-and-their-prices/
[3]  https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/explaining-the-prescription-drug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act/
[4]  https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-policies-to-address-prescription-drug-affordability-across-the-supply-chain/
[5] https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20APPENDIX%20v3.pdf, at i.
[6] https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20APPENDIX%20v3.pdf, at 79.
[7] https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/DRUG%20PRICING%20REPORT%20WITH%20APPENDIX%20v3.pdf, at ix, 14.