News Focus
News Focus
Followers 4
Posts 406
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/01/2010

Re: investorgold2002 post# 7128

Saturday, 10/29/2011 11:39:46 AM

Saturday, October 29, 2011 11:39:46 AM

Post# of 20689
Investorgold,

If that is so, I am not sure how FDA's bio pathway will address "biosimilar/generic legislation the intent of which was to reduce drug cost and bring affordability.

I disagree. First, the pathway needed to be defined to allow competition to the branded drugs in the first place. Secondly, you are assuming that there's only one way (in the case of a duopoly like the current state of Lovenox) of proving sameness. (Hmmm, if there is only one way to prove sameness in many drugs and MNTA has the capabilities, wow, buy as much MNTA as you can Monday and just wait 5 - 10 years!).

I understand duopoly is better than monopoly. But there will not be significant cost reduction like how it is happening in non-biologics.

Again, I disagree. Now let me make an assumption that there might be more than one way to prove sameness. If this were the case, there will likely be many situations in the future where licensing of patents will occur. For example, let's say that MNTA feels that there might be another way to prove sameness -or- a way to get around it's patents, then they might choose to license their patents (after some period of sole generic status) giving an entry to more competitors to the marketplace. A steady revenue stream from licensing is usually desirable for any product facing margin pressures (possible competitors, new drugs, etc.). At the right time, licensing can also disincentivize others from continuing to develop other methods.

(As usual, all forward looking statements are my opinion only.)

Have a great day everyone!