{
  "id": "RL33605",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33605",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 416746,
      "date": "2013-01-17",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T21:27:21.115812",
      "title": "Authorized Generic Pharmaceuticals: Effects on Innovation",
      "summary": "The practice of \u201cauthorized generics\u201d has recently been the subject of considerable attention by the pharmaceutical industry, regulators, and members of Congress alike. An \u201cauthorized generic\u201d (sometimes termed a \u201cbranded,\u201d \u201cflanking,\u201d or \u201cpseudo\u201d generic) is a pharmaceutical that is marketed by or on behalf of a brand-name drug company, but is sold under a generic name. Although the availability of an additional competitor in the generic drug market would appear to be favorable to consumers, authorized generics have nonetheless proven controversial. Some observers believe that authorized generics potentially discourage independent generic firms both from challenging drug patents and from selling their own products.\nThese perceived disincentives result from the provisions of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. Better known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, this legislation provides independent generic firms with a reward for challenging patents held by brand-name firms. That \u201cbounty\u201d consists of a 180-day generic drug exclusivity period awarded to the first patent challenger. During the 180-day period, the brand-name company and the first generic applicant are the only firms that receive authorization to sell that pharmaceutical. At the close of this period, other independent generic competitors may obtain marketing approval and enter the market, ordinarily resulting in lower prices for generic medicines.\nSome commentators view the 180-day exclusivity period as a crucial incentive for generic firms to challenge patents held by brand-name firms. Under this view, the launch of an authorized generic during the 180-day exclusivity period makes the recovery of litigation expenses more difficult. In turn, the possibility that a brand-name firm will sell an authorized generic during the 180-day exclusivity period may decrease the incentives of generic firms to challenge patents in the first instance.\nOther observers believe that authorized generics benefit consumers by increasing competition in the generic market. Because the authorized generic is manufactured by the brand-name firm and identical to its own product, consumers may be encouraged to switch to the lower-cost authorized generic alternative. Authorized generics may also facilitate the settlement of patent litigation between brand-name and independent generic firms. As an historical matter, certain of these settlement agreements have allowed authorized generics to enter the market, and therefore promoted competition, prior to the expiration of the relevant patent term.\nRecent judicial opinions have upheld FDA practices allowing authorized generics. If authorized generic practice is deemed appropriate, then no action need be taken. The approach taken by legislation introduced in the 112th Congress, H.R. 741 and S. 373, presented another option. Under these bills, authorized generics may not be sold during the term of the 180-day generic exclusivity. This legislation was not enacted.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33605",
          "sha1": "440f5363b78e09378bddb28fc571c9e55d05bd00",
          "filename": "files/20130117_RL33605_440f5363b78e09378bddb28fc571c9e55d05bd00.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33605",
          "sha1": "befaebe4ec06d39bf32c7f68a6907286ef0b3537",
          "filename": "files/20130117_RL33605_befaebe4ec06d39bf32c7f68a6907286ef0b3537.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 2678,
          "name": "Medical Product Regulation"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc815282/",
      "id": "RL33605_2008Jan10",
      "date": "2008-01-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Authorized Generic Pharmaceuticals: Effects on Innovation",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20080110_RL33605_9c1308fad8bbe8a66b484d20e2c8650fd7adb63c.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20080110_RL33605_9c1308fad8bbe8a66b484d20e2c8650fd7adb63c.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9508/",
      "id": "RL33605 2006-08-08",
      "date": "2006-08-08",
      "retrieved": "2006-12-05T13:25:39",
      "title": "Authorized Generic Pharmaceuticals: Effects on Innovation",
      "summary": "The practice of \u201cauthorized generics\u201d has recently been the subject of considerable attention by the pharmaceutical industry, regulators, and members of Congress alike. An \u201cauthorized generic\u201d\u2013sometimes termed a \u201cbranded,\u201d \u201cflanking,\u201d or \u201cpseudo\u201d generic\u2013is a pharmaceutical that is marketed by or on behalf of a brand name drug company, but is sold under a generic name. Although the availability of an additional competitor in the generic drug market would appear to be favorable to consumers, authorized generics have nonetheless proven controversial. Some observers believe that authorized generics potentially discourage independent generic firms both from challenging drug patents and from selling their own products.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20060808_RL33605_614fbabb10204df97b150df1964ef6956ffdf726.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20060808_RL33605_614fbabb10204df97b150df1964ef6956ffdf726.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Medicine",
          "name": "Medicine"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Competition",
          "name": "Competition"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Drug industry",
          "name": "Drug industry"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Generic drugs",
          "name": "Generic drugs"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Business",
          "name": "Business"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}