Editorial: Extended patent hurts consumers

Monday, Feb. 21, 2000 | 8:39 a.m.

Many allergy sufferers in the Las Vegas Valley rely on the drug Claritin to make it through the day. The antihistamine typically costs between $1.80 and $2.50 for a daily dose, but companies say they could sell the generic version of the medication for about 50 cents. How sweet it would be if these companies could get their way, especially for senior citizens on fixed incomes.

Regrettably the New Jersey pharmaceutical company that makes Claritin, Schering-Plough, is acting like a big, bad bully. The company has been flexing its considerable political muscle in an attempt to convince Congress to extend its patent on the drug for three years beyond its 2002 expiration date. But as the Sun's Benjamin Grove reported, an extension of the patent would cost consumers as much as $3.4 billion because it would deprive them of generic medications.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., is the most recent of 78 House members who have been roped into supporting this bill. He and his colleagues say they are sympathetic to the argument from Schering-Plough that the extension is warranted to make up for Food and Drug Administration delays in originally approving the drug.

The company sobs that the delay cost them years of profit, but it still managed to spend $11 million on lobbying, according to consumer advocate Public Citizen. The company also gave more than $1.1 million in campaign contributions since 1996 to political parties and candidates, many of whom sit on key committees that will consider this legislation. We are pleased to report that Gibbons has not taken any campaign money from this company, making him a rare exception in Congress.

But Gibbons and other supporters of the patent extension are wrong-headed because they are putting the interests of the company ahead of millions of consumers. This is particularly shameful at a time when Congress ought to be exploring ways to cut medical costs, not inflate them.

In addition to Claritin the bill could extend the patents of seven other drugs used by seniors for cancer and stroke treatments as well as arthritis and skin problems. We share the concerns of advocates such as Carla Sloan, Nevada director of the American Association of Retired Persons, who say the bill would hit seniors hard in the pocketbook.

We urge Gibbons to change his mind and withdraw support from this bill. There would be no shame in doing that. Allergy sufferers in Nevada, and we know there are more than a few out there, would owe the congressman a debt of gratitude.