Ah, that bastion of financial and economic analysis, Time Magazine. Probably very fair and even reporting. I'm sure all the facts and factors were taken into account.
Product liability has contained this faulty reasoning for many years. I know a agriculture machinery company that acquired another such company for the benefit of using their brand name and a couple of patents. The acquired company produced some machinery during or shortly after WWII that eventually broke and injured a farmer.
Despite the fact that the farmer had no business using such old equipment and despite the fact that the acquiring company did not even exist when the machinery was manufactured - the company was saddled with paying a relatively large claim.
The pharmaceutical industry is profitable, but the return on capital is pretty average and the risks high. It's not like they're rolling in profits.
Healthcare in the US, in my opinion, is the most expensive in the world for a bunch of reasons. Part of it is simply that the US is a rich country and those of us who are doing reasonably well choose to spend a lot of money obsessing about our health, rather than taking cheaper options. A good deal of it is that, if one were to try and think of the worst way to run a healthcare system, the US model manages to combine all the bad features of all of the ideas and then add a heck of a lot of new bad ideas all its own.
Where does the money go? Hospital groups do well. A good proportion of doctors do well, although they go into way more debt than most paying for med school. Our roulette-wheel medical malpractice system doesn't help, either directly The sheer inefficiency of the bureaucracy eats up a good chunk of it; the US employs way more people in healthcare than most places, and especially in administrative and overhead.
It's getting to the point that a smart business should have only a fixed lifespan -- perhaps not quite that bad, but getting there.
The worst part is that it is highly unlikely that the generic Reglan caused any harm unless the "victim" was using far more than the recommended dose. The drug had been prescribed for years with few side effects, which is why a lower dose version was approved for over-the-counter sale.
Maybe it's just me, but this "logic" sounds like something straight out of "Atlas Shrugged." These judges should be hounded from the bench and disbarred for sheer stupidity.
property rights is property right - right? If someone damages your property - if you listen to the Libertarian types - you are entitled to be compensated by the folks who harmed you - right?
seriously - I'm betting that most every drug company sits down and talks with their lawyers about how much "exposure" each new drug might have and surely some have significant exposure and likely it plays a role in why some are so expensive. Folks may also notice just how extensive the label warnings are these days - overt warnings to those that would prescribe them... "off label". ..
what's the solution? Should the govt step in and put a cap on all drugs for damages or worse, form a "death panel" to look at each case and determine damages? Oh wait... we do have courts for that, right?
all in all .. this really goes to the heart of property rights ... in my view... should each case be decided by a jury of "peers" or an appointed judge or govt fiat?
we have "no fault" and "uninsured" auto insurance these days, right? Is it time for a drug version of it?
I was thinking something similar. This is an acid-reflux drug, after all, and the generic manufacturer is still selling it, and people are buying it, and we haven't had a rash of consumer complaints about it. Or any at all? Also, why did the Alabama Supreme Court rule against Wyeth re the warnings, but not involve the FDA in order to investigate whether the generic drug manufacturer should be required to pull the drug off the market if it is that terrible? This is a really awful precedent. Acid-reflux drugs have done more good for humanity than, well, enough said. And Wyeth is a good company, or was (I think it was merged or such awhile ago).
Dumbass, you cannot be held liable for something you do not own, or do not have any interest in.
hey mesa... have you ever head of generic royalties ? might want to google it fool.
In the 80s, Ozzie Osbourne was sued when a troubled teenager committed suicide after listening to one of his albums. The suit was eventually dismissed. But suppose it had prevailed. Under this new ruling, Ozzie would be liable any time a suicide happens after a tribute band plays "Suicide is Painless".
Who cares? Like medical malpractice, I don't care that even in California the insurance costs $5k/year for some doctors. I don't like the idea that someone can cost you thousands and if they lose they don't incur upto 2x their prosecution costs like England. I wish drug makers can ban sales of their drugs in states that have unfair lawsuit enabling laws. For instance stricter labelling laws that cannot override the FDA, but make it easy to sue.
I think you misunderstand "generic royalties". They appear to only effect drugs on which the patent has not expired, but the patent owner wishes to have generic drug companies produce. The roalties epire when the patent expires.
more reading tends to make some think it's more complex than it appears. " With few exceptions, it also required generic manufacturers to use the same labels — the lengthy list of a drug's uses, dosages and risks — used by the brand names."
that makes it sound like if the original manufacturer gets new info that is adverse that they have a responsibility to communicate that to the generic makers and if they do not - and someone is hurt - they may well name both the generic and the original manufacturer and let judge (in this case the SCOTUS on a split vote) ..sort it out as to who knew about the problem and when did they inform others.
it's a little more complicated than it appears on the face of it.