Pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to making money from the production and sale of medications. Many of these companies agree that patients with orphan diseases deserve to be treated, but also feel that it is not cost effective to produce drugs for such a small consumer base (Drummond). Most companies feel that there should be more benefits from the government when they decide to produce an orphan drug.
In 1983 the Orphan Drug Act was passed in the United States. The purpose of this act was to encourage pharmaceutical companies to produce more orphan drugs. This act used a number of methods to achieve this including tax benefits and increased likelihood of receiving grants from the government, but the most effective method affects the potential competition on the market for these drugs. The act states that the first company to produce an orphan drug is the only company with the rights to market a treatment for that orphan disease for an extended period of time. This reduces competition in an attempt to make it more affordable to create these drugs ("Orphan Drug Act").
However, many companies feel that these benefits are still not enough. These companies say that it is still far too risky to begin the development of an orphan drug. There are concerns about wasting money on the research into a treatment for a disease, only to be banned from marketing a drug because another company reached the final stages of testing before they did. For example, this happened to a company called Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Both this company and a company called Genzyme began producing a treatment for the orphan disease called Fabry disease. Genzyme received FDA approval before Shire did, and Shire consequently is still unable to market their treatment (Motabar). Situations like this lead companies to abandon the concept before attempting to produce the drug in an attempt to avoid wasting precious time and money.
Pharmaceutical companies feel that there should be increased benefits from the government when they produce an orphan drug. They are pushing for an addition to, or rewrite of, the Orphan Drug Act which will make it less risky and more cost effective to treat patients with orphan diseases.
Works Cited
Drummond, Michael F. "Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Orphan Dugs." Eurohealth 14.2:16-17. Web.
Motabar, Omid et al. “Fabry Disease – Current Treatment and New Drug Development.” Current Chemical Genomics 4 (2010): 50–56. PMC. Web
"Orphan Drug Act." Federal Drug Administration. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Web.
In 1983 the Orphan Drug Act was passed in the United States. The purpose of this act was to encourage pharmaceutical companies to produce more orphan drugs. This act used a number of methods to achieve this including tax benefits and increased likelihood of receiving grants from the government, but the most effective method affects the potential competition on the market for these drugs. The act states that the first company to produce an orphan drug is the only company with the rights to market a treatment for that orphan disease for an extended period of time. This reduces competition in an attempt to make it more affordable to create these drugs ("Orphan Drug Act").
However, many companies feel that these benefits are still not enough. These companies say that it is still far too risky to begin the development of an orphan drug. There are concerns about wasting money on the research into a treatment for a disease, only to be banned from marketing a drug because another company reached the final stages of testing before they did. For example, this happened to a company called Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Both this company and a company called Genzyme began producing a treatment for the orphan disease called Fabry disease. Genzyme received FDA approval before Shire did, and Shire consequently is still unable to market their treatment (Motabar). Situations like this lead companies to abandon the concept before attempting to produce the drug in an attempt to avoid wasting precious time and money.
Pharmaceutical companies feel that there should be increased benefits from the government when they produce an orphan drug. They are pushing for an addition to, or rewrite of, the Orphan Drug Act which will make it less risky and more cost effective to treat patients with orphan diseases.
Works Cited
Drummond, Michael F. "Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Orphan Dugs." Eurohealth 14.2:16-17. Web.
Motabar, Omid et al. “Fabry Disease – Current Treatment and New Drug Development.” Current Chemical Genomics 4 (2010): 50–56. PMC. Web
"Orphan Drug Act." Federal Drug Administration. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Web.
Pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to making money from the production and sale of medications. Many of these companies agree that patients with orphan diseases deserve to be treated, but also feel that it is not cost effective to produce drugs for such a small consumer base (Drummond). Most companies feel that there should be more benefits from the government when they decide to produce an orphan drug.
In 1983 the Orphan Drug Act was passed in the United States. The purpose of this act was to encourage pharmaceutical companies to produce more orphan drugs. This act used a number of methods to achieve this including tax benefits and increased likelihood of receiving grants from the government, but the most effective method affects the potential competition on the market for these drugs. The act states that the first company to produce an orphan drug is the only company with the rights to market a treatment for that orphan disease for an extended period of time. This reduces competition in an attempt to make it more affordable to create these drugs ("Orphan Drug Act").
However, many companies feel that these benefits are still not enough. These companies say that it is still far too risky to begin the development of an orphan drug. There are concerns about wasting money on the research into a treatment for a disease, only to be banned from marketing a drug because another company reached the final stages of testing before they did. For example, this happened to a company called Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Both this company and a company called Genzyme began producing a treatment for the orphan disease called Fabry disease. Genzyme received FDA approval before Shire did, and Shire consequently is still unable to market their treatment (Motabar). Situations like this lead companies to abandon the concept before attempting to produce the drug in an attempt to avoid wasting precious time and money.
Pharmaceutical companies feel that there should be increased benefits from the government when they produce an orphan drug. They are pushing for an addition to, or rewrite of, the Orphan Drug Act which will make it less risky and more cost effective to treat patients with orphan diseases.
Works Cited
Drummond, Michael F. "Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Orphan Dugs." Eurohealth 14.2:16-17. Web.
Motabar, Omid et al. “Fabry Disease – Current Treatment and New Drug Development.” Current Chemical Genomics 4 (2010): 50–56. PMC. Web
"Orphan Drug Act." Federal Drug Administration. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Web.
In 1983 the Orphan Drug Act was passed in the United States. The purpose of this act was to encourage pharmaceutical companies to produce more orphan drugs. This act used a number of methods to achieve this including tax benefits and increased likelihood of receiving grants from the government, but the most effective method affects the potential competition on the market for these drugs. The act states that the first company to produce an orphan drug is the only company with the rights to market a treatment for that orphan disease for an extended period of time. This reduces competition in an attempt to make it more affordable to create these drugs ("Orphan Drug Act").
However, many companies feel that these benefits are still not enough. These companies say that it is still far too risky to begin the development of an orphan drug. There are concerns about wasting money on the research into a treatment for a disease, only to be banned from marketing a drug because another company reached the final stages of testing before they did. For example, this happened to a company called Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Both this company and a company called Genzyme began producing a treatment for the orphan disease called Fabry disease. Genzyme received FDA approval before Shire did, and Shire consequently is still unable to market their treatment (Motabar). Situations like this lead companies to abandon the concept before attempting to produce the drug in an attempt to avoid wasting precious time and money.
Pharmaceutical companies feel that there should be increased benefits from the government when they produce an orphan drug. They are pushing for an addition to, or rewrite of, the Orphan Drug Act which will make it less risky and more cost effective to treat patients with orphan diseases.
Works Cited
Drummond, Michael F. "Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Orphan Dugs." Eurohealth 14.2:16-17. Web.
Motabar, Omid et al. “Fabry Disease – Current Treatment and New Drug Development.” Current Chemical Genomics 4 (2010): 50–56. PMC. Web
"Orphan Drug Act." Federal Drug Administration. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Web.