Tag: Health Care

In order to restore competition in the U.S. market for consumer pregnancy tests, the Commission effectively reversed a consummated transaction in which Inverness Medical Innovations, a 70% market share holder, purchased the assets related to the development of a water-soluble dye based pregnancy test from ACON Laboratories in order to protect its monopoly power in the market. According to the Commission’s complaint, Inverness restrained competition in two ways. First, Inverness issued covenants not to compete to ACON, took profits from ACON’s joint venture with Church & Dwight, and purchased intellectual property rights which would restrict ACON from developing competing products. Second, Inverness limited product innovation by purchasing, but not using, the water-soluble dye test technology purchased from ACON, one of the only companies utilizing that technology. The Commission’s consent order ended any restrictions Inverness had over the joint venture between ACON and Church & Dwight, and required that Inverness divest its assets relating to the water-soluble dye technology, and its related pregnancy test product.

The Commission challenged Fresenius Medical Care’s proposed purchase of an exclusive sublicense for the manufacture and supply of the drug Venofer to US dialysis clinics from Daiichi Sankyo Company. Venofer is an intravenously administered iron sucrose preparation used primarily to treat iron-deficiency anemia in dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease. The agreement would have given Fresenius, the largest operator of dialysis clinics in the country, the ability to artificially inflate its internal costs for Venofer, and effectively increase Medicare reimbursement payments for all buyers of the drug. In order to settle these concerns about anticompetitive self-dealing, the Commission issued a consent order restricting Fresenius from reporting internally inflated Venofer prices by mandating that the current market price for the drug be used in reporting the average selling price to Medicare.

The Commission charged that Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd’s proposed acquisition of Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd would substantially reduce competition, likely resulting in higher prices for three distinct generic formulations of the anticonvulsant drug carbamazepine, used widely as an antiepileptic and to prevent and control seizures. The proposed deal would have reduced the number of drug suppliers to a level where the number of competitors has a direct and substantial impact on prices. In order to remedy these concerns, Sun agreed to divest all of its rights and assets needed to develop three generic forms of carbamazepine: 1) immediate-release tablets; 2) chewable tablets; and 3) extended-release tablets.

An administrative law judge upheld the administrative complaint that charged that the North Texas Specialty Physicians (NTSP), a physician group practicing in Forth Worth, Texas, collectively determined acceptable fees for physician services in negotiating contracts with health insurance plans and other third party payers; thus engaging in horizontal price fixing. On December 1, 2005, the Commission issued a unanimous decision upholding the allegations that NTSP negotiated agreements among participating physicians on price and other terms, refused to negotiate with payers except on terms agreed to among its members, and refused to submit payors offers to members if the terms did not satisfy the group’s demands. The Commission concluded that the group’s contracting activities with payors amounts to unlawful horizontal price fixing and that respondent’s efficiency claims were not legitimate and not supported by the evidence.

The respondent appealed the Commission decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court agreed with the Commission that the anticompetitive effects of NTSP’s practices were obvious. Per remand by the Court, the Commission modified one provision of its remedial order, issuing a Final Order in September 2008. On February 28, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court denied NTSP's petition for review.