Reverse Payments for PHRMA smell fishy

Implications: Our FTC has gone on record once again stating that the so called "Phrma reverse payments" to generic manufacturers breach antitrust regulations. Delaying competition by simply paying off another supplier, leads to higher prices for me, you, and our families.  My grandpa used to call this stuff by another term....."shmearing".

Analysis: Reverse payments, otherwise known simply as under the table payoffs to generic manufacturers from branded companies, not only damage the consumer, but really create a monopoly in preventing other generic players from entering the market.

What a great concept to keep prices artificially high! But who all truly benefits from high prices of branded drugs with no generic competition?
Answer: PHRMA and its core members, as well its stockholders. Surely not the American public.

Let's look at a prime example of what happens when a branded manufacturer does NOT participate in the Reverse Payment game. Behold, drug XYZ. When manufacturer X performs an "at risk" launch of a generic version to garner a huge market share and save the patient some real co-pay dollars. Although the savings to the end payor source (insurer/employer group) might have only been in the 20% range, the consumer won with this medication dropping down to their generic co-pay tier. Retail pharmacies usually convert over 90% of their patient base to generic, thus building stronger loyalty and margin dollars as well.

End result of the "at risk" scenario is that the consumer won for a short period. The generic manufacturer won, and won big, for a short period. Phrma sued and earned it's product back, along with plenty of recovery dollars.

Shifting back to the Reverse Payment scenario, no competition occurs whatsoever, with hidden payments muddying up the waters.

I guess that's simply another form of poor transparency in the pharmaceutical industry.