Citizen Petitions: An Empirical Study

Carrier, Michael A. & Wander, Daryl

Journal: Cardozo Law Review

Volume: 34

First Page: 249

Year: 2012

Bluebook Citation: 34 CARDOZO L. REV. 249 (2012)

Author: Michael A. Carrier: all 40 publications


Citation analytics

How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited
5
Citing decisions
3
Courts citing

Courts citing this journal article

2d Cir.3
10th Cir.1
D. Kan.1
Most recently cited by5
  • 2018In re Epipen D. Kan.
  • 2017In Re ACTOS End-Payor Antitrust Litigation 2d Cir.
  • 2017United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1776 v. Takeda America Holdings, Inc. 2d Cir.
  • 2017Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc. 10th Cir.
  • 2016Apotex Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. 2d Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Abstract

In recent years, brand-name drug companies have engaged in an array of conduct that has delayed generic competition. While some of the activity - such as settlements between brand and generic firms and "product hopping" from one drug version to another - has received attention, another behavior has, until now, flown under the radar. This Article examines the activity of "citizen petitions." A citizen petition is a request for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take an action such as evaluating a drug's safety or effectiveness. When used appropriately, it could raise awareness of legitimate concerns with a drug. But when used inappropriately, it could extend the brand firm's monopoly by delaying FDA approval of generic drugs. This delay could result in literally millions of dollars a day being transferred from consumers to drug companies. Despite their delaying potential, citizen petitions have not been examined in significant detail. This Article offers the first empirical study of citizen petitions, reviewing every petition filed with the FDA between 2001 and 2010. It finds that petitions have increased in the past decade and that 68% of petitions are filed by brand companies, with more than 75% of brand petitions targeting generic drugs. The study concludes that the FDA has granted 19% of citizen petitions and has denied 81%. It finds that generics' petitions are more successful, with 28% granted and 72% denied, as compared to brands' petitions, of which 19% are granted and 81% denied. To reduce delays from petitions, Congress enacted legislation in 2007 that required the FDA to rule on certain petitions within 180 days. This study finds that this legislation has not been successful in reducing the number of petitions. After passage of the legislation, the average number of filings per year increased from 27 to 34. Brand petitions against generics increased from 9 to 16 per year. And the grant rate for brands' petitions against generics declined from 20% to 19%. Building on the empirical study, the Article highlights the incentives brand firms have to file petitions, along with the role petitions play in the toolbox of delaying conduct. It also introduces examples that demonstrate the problem, such as the petitions delaying (1) depression drug Wellbutrin for 133 days at a cost to consumers of $600 million and (2) insomnia drug Ambien for 1225 days at a cost of $3.1 billion. The landscape in the pharmaceutical industry today is ripe for petitions, with an impending "patent cliff," declining drug-company profits, and increased use of related conduct such as brand-generic settlements and product hopping. As a tool that is being used more frequently and that has evaded attempts to limit its abusive potential, citizen petitions warrant scrutiny.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.