[jfengel]

As I understand it, as the patents begin to expire, they suddenly discover that the old formulation has serious side effects that make it too dangerous to keep making.

And oh, by the way, we also happen to be introducing a very very very slightly different molecule that qualifies for a brand new patent. No side effects this time, we promise, and see you in 20 years.

[lotsofpulp]

> they suddenly discover that the old formulation has serious side effects that make it too dangerous to keep making.

Who is they?

> And oh, by the way, we also happen to be introducing a very very very slightly different molecule that qualifies for a brand new patent

Presuming “we” is the companies that own the current patent, what does this have to do with the older molecule’s patent that is expiring?

[chimeracoder]

> Presuming “we” is the companies that own the current patent, what does this have to do with the older molecule’s patent that is expiring?

"Evergreening" is a very common practice among pharmaceutical companies. In its purest form, it looks like this:

* About 10 years after a drug has been approved, they will seek approval for a replacement version which is very similar, but different enough to qualify for a different patent.

* Then they have a few years to get everyone onto the new drug, claiming that the new one is safer, or more effective, or (in some cases) that the original one is horribly dangerous or has abuse potential which is somehow solved with the new drug[0].

* Around 15 years after the first drug was first approved, once enough people are on the second drug, they'll withdraw the first one from the market entirely, forcing everyone still using the first drug to switch to the second.

* Then, when the patent for the first drug expires (year 17), there's "no market" for it, because nobody is currently prescribed that drug, so no manufacturers will bother producing any generic versions of it.

Rinse and repeat.

[0] Heroin™ was one of the first examples of this: it was developed and marketed by Bayer as a "less addictive" version of morphine.

[lotsofpulp]

>* About 10 years after a drug has been approved, they will seek approval for a replacement version which is very similar, but different enough to qualify for a different patent.

Why are other companies not jumping on this opportunity before 10 years?

>Then, when the patent for the first drug expires (year 17), there's "no market" for it, because nobody is currently prescribed that drug, so no manufacturers will bother producing any generic versions of it.

So the cost of educating consumers (marketing) is not offset by the difference in cost of selling the generic and the cost of selling the new patented version?

[jfengel]

Why are other companies not jumping on this opportunity before 10 years?

They do, when they can. But often they can't. A patent covers not just the molecule, but the treatment. Often, they would need to license the original patent even if they have the more advanced molecule, and they can't get the license.

So the cost of educating consumers (marketing) is not offset by the difference in cost of selling the generic and the cost of selling the new patented version?

Patients aren't really equipped to make this decision. It's made by doctors and by insurance companies. They are often reluctant to prescribe/pay for the "almost as good and a lot cheaper" drug, for fear of exposing themselves to risk. Generics manufacturers don't usually have the influence to convince them otherwise.

There's also the regulators. If the drug manufacturer can convince the regulator that the old drug is dangerous, they can simply forbid it.

[lotsofpulp]

> A patent covers not just the molecule, but the treatment.

That sounds crazy. How can someone patent the process of healing? What else could patenting the “treatment” mean? Are there any examples of this?

> Patients aren't really equipped to make this decision. It's made by doctors and by insurance companies. They are often reluctant to prescribe/pay for the "almost as good and a lot cheaper" drug, for fear of exposing themselves to risk.

Why would they have risk, if the government has already declared it legal to sell? Insurance companies and government are known to prefer cheaper, generic medicine, and a common complaint is insurance companies and government requiring prior authorization for brand name medications.

> There's also the regulators. If the drug manufacturer can convince the regulator that the old drug is dangerous, they can simply forbid it.

This would be pretty big corruption. Are there examples?