Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Biobillionair]

Take advantage over this! We need to start a PAC, and make a statement ASAP!

Americans for Ethical Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease (AETCD)


Would a federal agency go out of its way to expose an industry to vastly increased liability on the basis of consultation only with trial lawyers who stand to profit from more lawsuits? Apparently, yes.

That’s exactly what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did in the course of proposing a new rule that would open generic drug manufacturers to substantial additional liability risks, according to House Republicans who are threatening a full-blown investigation.

This strange story begins with a 2011 Supreme Court ruling. In Pliva v. Mensing, the high court held that generic medication makers were entitled to a shield against liability suits alleging inadequate labeling because the companies didn’t have discretion over what went on their labels. (In legalese, such a shield is known as federal preemption of lawsuits.) By law, generic manufacturers had to mimic what was on the label of the original branded version of the drug and could not change that language without permission from the FDA.

Blog: The Race to Avert the Next Government Shutdown Is Already Under Way
The FDA decided it did not want to see generic manufacturers protected against failure-to-warn lawsuits in this manner. So the agency proposed a rule change that established a process for generic drug manufacturers to change labels without FDA approval. Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, described this odd-sounding development during testimony before a House subcommittee hearing in April.

In a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg dated July 16, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform noted that “the FDA has failed to explain how public health will improve, or how much improvement is expected, from increased liability” on the part of generic drug companies. “The committee is concerned with several dubious aspects of this rulemaking,” the letter continued.

One such dubious aspect, the letter stated, was that “the FDA readily admits that the only group it met with prior to issuance of the proposed rule was the American Association of Justice,” or AAJ, otherwise known as the plaintiffs-bar lobby. That meeting took place on Feb. 15, 2013, according to the letter, which also contains verbatim testimony from Woodcock confirming that the AAJ was the sole interest group that advised the FDA on the matter.

Story: Uber: The Company Cities Love to Hate
“Given the intent of the rule is to create an environment for increased litigation, the committee finds it troubling that the FDA consulted only with trial lawyers, but no other major stakeholder likely to be affected,” the Republicans’ letter added. (Read: “Holy cow, are you guys kidding?!”)

The oversight committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, no stranger to politically charged investigations, has demanded a briefing by FDA officials by July 23 and a large pile of internal agency documents by a week later. The FDA may have some way of explaining itself, but based on what’s publicly known so far, something sure doesn’t smell right here.

I predict hearings in the fall, with Republicans railing against the Obama administration’s friendly relationship with the trial bar, just in time for mid-term congressional elections.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-22/house-gop-demands-fda-explain-plaintiffs-lawyer-lobbying