[Ip-health] The Economist: Why America’s biggest charities are owned by pharmaceutical companies

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Wed Aug 14 08:00:49 PDT 2019


https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/08/13/why-americas-biggest-charities-are-owned-by-pharmaceutical-companies

Generous to a faultWhy America’s biggest charities are owned by
pharmaceutical companies

Their generosity helps their bottom line

United States

Aug 13th 2019 NEW YORK

WHEN PATIENTS in need of medicines in America go to fill their prescription
the price they have to pay can vary wildly. For generic off-patent drugs
prices are usually low for the uninsured and free for those with insurance.
But for newer patent-protected therapies prices can be as high as several
thousand dollars per month. Those without insurance might end up facing
these lofty list prices. Even those with coverage will often have to fork
out some of the cost, called a co-payment, while their insurance covers the
rest.

These co-payments, which for the most expensive drugs can themselves be
prohibitively high, can act as a deterrent to filling a prescription. Into
this gap a new type of charity has emerged: one that offers to pay
co-payments for patients. There are two main types of such charities. There
are independent ones, like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, America's
largest charity, which spent $3.4bn on co-payments in 2014.

There are also co-pay charities owned by drugmakers themselves. According
to public tax filings for 2016, the last year for which data are available,
total spending across 13 of the largest pharmaceutical companies operating
in America was $7.4bn. The co-pay charity run by AbbVie, a drugmaker that
manufactures humira, a widely taken immunosuppressant, is the third largest
charity in America. Its competitors are not far behind. Bristol-Myers
Squibb, which makes cancer drugs, runs the fourth largest. Johnson and
Johnson, an American health conglomerate, runs the fifth largest. Half of
America’s top 20 largest charities are co-pay charities owned by
pharmaceutical companies.

Not everyone qualifies for their help. Unsurprisingly, pharma-owned co-pay
charities only fund co-payments on prescriptions for drugs that they
manufacture. There is an income threshold, too, which excludes the richest
Americans—though it is usually set quite high, at around five times the
household poverty line in America. In fact they are prohibited from funding
co-payments for those on Medicaid (which helps the poor) and Medicare
(which helps the elderly) by the anti-kickback statute, which prevents
private companies from inducing people to use government services. Those
patients can accept co-pay support from independent charities, such as the
Gates Foundation.

The impact of these charities is large and growing. Most of them are less
than 20 years old. In 2001 just five drugmakers operated co-pay charities,
spending a total of $370m. That had risen 20-fold to $7.4bn by 2016.
According to Ronny Gal, an analyst at Bernstein, a research firm, the
co-payment on the price of a drug is usually just 10% of the cost the
pharmaceutical company ultimately charges to the insurance provider. This
would mean that $7.4bn spent on copayments could earn drugmakers $74bn in
revenues, which would account for nearly a quarter of total drug spending
in America. Add in spending by the Gates Foundation and this share rises to
a third.

Pharmaceutical companies will often claim that helping patients with their
co-payments is one way of making expensive drugs more accessible. But it
has the fortunate consequence of making their customers price insensitive,
because insurance companies will often use high co-payments to nudge their
customers into opting for generics over costlier branded drugs: no co-pay,
no incentive to save money.

Say a patient is prescribed a statin, a type of drug to lower cholesterol
which has proved useful in reducing heart disease. They could take Lipitor,
a branded drug manufactured by Pfizer, with a list price of around $165 per
month. But a generic drug, Atorvastatin, has also become available for just
$10 per month. In the absence of help from a charity, a patient with
private insurance would probably be able to get Atorvastatin free of
charge, but would have to pay some of the cost for Lipitor. With help from
Pfizer’s co-pay charity, both are free. “It is entirely to their advantage
because consumers only care about what it costs them,” says Adriane
Fugh-Berman of Georgetown University. “It’s not charity, it’s cheating.”

There is also evidence that pharmaceutical companies bump up the scope of
their co-payment programs shortly after they hike drug prices. When Martin
Shkreli, the former boss of Turing Pharmaceuticals (who has since been
imprisoned for securities fraud), increased the price of Daraprim 50-fold
in 2015 he also donated money to a fund to cover co-pays for patients with
toxoplasmosis, a disease treated using Daraprim.

American authorities are trying to curb the effects these charities might
be having on prices. In California in 2017 a bill was passed banning
companies from providing co-pay assistance in some situations, eg, if a
patient’s insurance company offered a drug on a lower co-pay cost tier that
the Food and Drug Administration had deemed therapeutically identical, or
when the active ingredient is available over-the-counter at a lower cost.

A patented formula for itchy backs

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also looking more closely
at independent charities that are sometimes sponsored by pharmaceutical
firms. One independent charity only offered co-pay support for a specific
type of “breakthrough pain” for cancer patients, a condition its sponsor
had 40% market share in treating. An SEC probe has already settled claims
with some pharmaceutical firms, though none have admitted wrongdoing.
United Therapeutics has settled the biggest claim, worth $210m, with the
Department of Justice. Lundbeck, a Danish drugmaker, and Pfizer have
settled smaller claims. “Pfizer knew that the third-party foundation was
using Pfizer’s money to cover the co-pays of patients taking Pfizer drugs,”
according to US Attorney Andrew Lelling, “masking the effect of Pfizer’s
price increases.” Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Gilead Sciences, Celgene,
Biogen and others face investigations.

Using co-pay charities to support high prices is good for business, but
charitable contributions foster healthy profits in another way too: they
are tax deductible. The corporate tax codes of most countries allow
companies to deduct the cost of any charitable giving from pre-tax profits.
But in America the system is more generous, says Jason Factor, a tax lawyer
at Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton. Companies that give products for the
benefit of the “needy or ill” can deduct up to twice the cost of gifted
goods. How convenient!


-- 
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International
41 22 791 6727
thiru at keionline.org


More information about the Ip-health mailing list