In the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, the respondent brought an antitrust action against Abbott Laboratories claiming that they had violated the Robinson-Patman Act. The pharmaceutical manufacturers had sold drugs to not-for-profit hospitals at lower prices then to the commercial pharmacies (Showalter, pg 452). The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, which was an amendment to the Clayton Antitrust Act (Elfand, n.d.), had made it unlawful to discriminate by placing a pricing difference between buyers of similar goods, when “the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). As the petitioners, Abbott Laboratories claimed that the price …show more content…
The Court of Appeals “vacated and remanded” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). They agreed with the District Court in that the hospitals were indeed nonprofit, but the Court of Appeals decided that the hospital’s drugs are “purchased for its own use only where the hospital can be said to be the consumer, i.e., where dispensations are to inpatients and emergency facility patients” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, …show more content…
Even the respondent agreed with the Court of Appeals when they said that it doesn’t matter whether the patient is an inpatient or outpatient or whether the patient is occupying a bed, the hospital is still using the drugs for their own use (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). When an inpatient or outpatient has a take-home prescription, the Supreme Court ruled that the hospital is using the drugs for its own use. This is because the take-home prescription is only used for a limited and appropriate amount of time, and that continuation of care is not unreasonable (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists,
Case: 791 F2d 189 Thompson Medical Co. Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission Facts: This case concerns a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC" or "Commission") against petitioner Thompson Medical Company under Secs. The Commission ordered Thompson to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that Aspercreme is effective and to disclose in the product 's labeling and advertising that it does not contain aspirin. Thompson challenges the FTC 's order as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to public policy, unsupported by substantial evidence, and discordant with applicable Commission precedent.
The Sherman Anti-trust Law was enacted in order to impose regulations on the booming industrial companies of the late 1800’s. It was very easy at the time for people of the same profession to band together or merge companies to create situations in which they could all maximize profit to the detriment of the average consumer. The Sherman law made conspiracies, monopolies and contracts illegal. One such contract is known as a trust, such as the one represented by the Maricopa County Medical Society. The Medical Society consists of over 70 percent of the doctor in our county and they decided that it would not be in violation of anti-trust laws to fix a price-ceiling.
Legal rules currently do not sufficiently discourage predatory pricing of prescription drugs, in this case EpiPens. The price of EpiPens rising in the pharmaceutical industry is legal and immoral. However, Mylan Pharmaceuticals may have violated the antitrust law in its EpiPen sales to schools. In 1890 the United States passed down the antitrust law also known as the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations in order to promote fair competition and outlaw monopolistic business practices.
In 1991, Walgreen’s had ten years remaining on a 30-year lease at the Southgate Mall in Milwaukee, where they had a pharmacy since 1951. The lease included an exclusivity clause preventing Sara Creek Property Company, the landlord, from leasing space at the mall to a tenant who wants to have a pharmacy. In 1991, Sara Creek wanted to buy out the existing anchor tenant, which was struggling and had recently declared bankruptcy, and replace it with Phar-Mor, which would be a discount store containing a pharmacy. As a result, Walgreen’s sued Sara Creek for a breach of contract, as the exclusivity clause in the lease would be violated. Phar-Mor was also a Defendant, but it was determined that they were not liable for any wrongdoing and all claims
These days’ patients can either opt out of treatment or health care options in general because the healthcare system has undergone so much scrutiny for many incidents that still go on, because there’s not a day that goes by without see these drug compensation commercials. Compensation for patients whom have suffered the side effects of drugs that were tested on them with vague explanations of how it would work, and we see human beings die off of such careless inhumane acts. Patients should be constantly reminded of their rights, like how the police read one’s Miranda before they arrested it should be the first thing a care giver makes sure his or her patient knows before they agree to any type of treatment that just
This action taken by the government into the investigation of the monopoly of EpiPens has uncovered that Mylan has been misclassifying the EpiPens for years. Mylan was supposed to classify EpiPen as a single source (meaning brand name drug) which would require them to provide Medicaid rebate of 23.1% of the cost and inflation rebate, but instead they classified it as a generic version of a drug which only requires 13% Medicaid rebate of the cost and no inflation rebate (Mole). This may cause the government to give Mylan penalties, and it may cause the government to make claims on sales. The government is penalizing and criticizing Mylan for using the system incorrectly, and the government is supporting generic versions of EpiPens and different brands to come to the United States to stop the monopoly and increase competition. Although some patent laws created by the government have created an epinephrine auto-injector monopoly in the United States, the government is working now to eliminate this monopoly and penalize Mylan for using it to its
Complications may arise due to medications being discontinued abruptly and without physician’s approval.
If the medications get to the doctor and delivers it to the patients, how will the patients know if that prescription is good enough for them to take? Just because getting free lunches in exchange for the
As a result, local pharmacies began refusing to fill prescriptions from Tri-State Health Care and Pain Management
John could bring a negligence claim to court against PharmaCARE if he can show that the drug firm had an responsibility to act with ordinary or reasonable care toward a person or the general public. In this case, PharmaCARE being a drug company marketed the drug because it believed the drug to be safe and therefore had an obligation to act with ordinary or reasonable care by clinically testing the new formulation before being distributed. The defendant's action did not meet this duty, and the defendant's action or failure to act caused harm to the plaintiff. PharmaCARE had a legal duty to ensure that its drugs were clinically tested even though it was a new formulation. In not conducting trials on the new formulation, PharmaCARE did not meet
The idea remains that the dispersal of stable patients to MNAs in regards to medication administration allocates more time for RNs/ LPNs to prioritize care for critical patients. A stable patient is defined by the New Hampshire Board of Nursing as one “whose overall health status, as assessed by a licensed nurse, is at the expected baseline”. Research conducted by Randolph and Scott-Cawiezell revealed trends in medication errors prior to and following the integration of MNAs. “Before the introduction of medication aides, error rates were as follows: RN (11.55%) and LPN (10.12%) with a mean error rate of 10.4%.
Twenty patients completed both interviews at home. They noted that none of the patients stored their medications safely or properly. Only one patient showed proper disposal of the
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments is significant because it establishes the way the public have access to affordable, safe generic drugs and the process by which those drugs get approved and marketed. To understand the importance of this act it is vital to know the process for how patent on drugs worked before this law was put into place. The time frame of a “patent or process for manufacturing a drug or therapeutic use for a drug” was that any one could bring the drug to the market immediately after the patent was issued or sooner. Yet for new drugs, it was a longer process. You would have to get approval from the FDA before going out on the market as well as have the necessary data from clinical trials
By establishing a government-funded, non-profit pharmaceutical sector, monopolies and outrageous prices may be avoided. By doing this, the emphasis may be shifted to helping individuals in need acquire reasonable, straightforward access to medications. Furthermore, rather than being artificially inflated, drug prices should be honest depictions of their true value. To prevent pharmaceutical companies from taking advantage of consumers, a fair evaluation of a drug's value and appropriate pricing would be
Rivalry among existing firms (High): The retail pharmacy industry has two 800-pound gorillas: Walgreens and CVS. Both companies have over 7,000 pharmacy stores and both count on prescription drugs for about 65 percent of their revenue. Competition between Walgreens and CVS pharmacies is direct and aggressive. For ex: CVS recently ran an advertisement in millions of circulars instructing Walgreens customers how to transition their accounts to CVS, and this behavior has continued as Express Scripts customers can no longer use Walgreens as their prescription drug provider and CVS works to acquire this market share.