Facebook
Britain's News Portal
Around The Clock
BREAKING
Loading latest headlines…

CMA Wins Appeal in Decade-Long Pfizer Drug Pricing Battle

The UK's competition watchdog has won a significant legal victory against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over allegations of excessive pricing for an anti-epilepsy drug. The court overturned a previous tribunal decision, advancing the long-running case.

  • The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been granted permission to appeal against a previous ruling in its case against Pfizer and Flynn Pharma.
  • The legal dispute, spanning a decade, concerns allegations that the companies charged the NHS excessively for phenytoin sodium, an anti-epilepsy drug.
  • A court judgment stated the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) was 'wrong to set aside' the CMA's original decision regarding the pricing investigation.
  • The CMA initially fined Pfizer £84.2 million and Flynn Pharma £5.2 million in 2016, later revising these fines to £63.3 million and £6.7 million respectively in 2022.
  • The case revolves around a significant price hike after the drug was de-branded in 2012, leading to NHS spending on the medication soaring from £2.3 million to over £50 million annually.

The UK's competition regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), has achieved a significant legal breakthrough in its protracted battle with US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The watchdog has secured permission to appeal against a previous decision by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in a case centring on allegations of excessive pricing for a crucial anti-epilepsy drug.

This development follows a decade-long legal tussle, which began with an investigation into the pricing of phenytoin sodium, a medication vital for thousands of epilepsy patients. The court's recent judgment asserted that the CAT had been "wrong to set aside the [CMA’s] decision" regarding its investigation into the companies' pricing practices. Furthermore, the court found that the CAT had "failed to engage with, or mischaracterised, the CMA’s decision on critical issues" and dismissed claims that the CMA's evidence examination was biased.

The controversy originated in 2013 when the CMA launched an investigation into suspected pricing issues. In 2015, the regulator alleged that Pfizer and its UK distributor, Flynn Pharma, were abusing their market dominance by charging the NHS and other customers prices up to 27 times higher than historical rates. This dramatic increase followed Pfizer's sale of its UK distribution rights for phenytoin sodium to Flynn Pharma in September 2012. Flynn Pharma then began selling an unbranded version of the drug, which Pfizer continued to manufacture, but at prices significantly inflated – up to 17 times higher than Pfizer's previous charges to Flynn Pharma.

Before 2012, the NHS spent approximately £2.3 million annually on the drug. However, this expenditure dramatically escalated to over £50 million in 2013 and remained above £40 million in 2014, highlighting the substantial financial impact of the alleged price manipulation. The CMA initially levied fines of £84.2 million against Pfizer and £5.2 million against Flynn Pharma in 2016, ordering them to reduce their prices. These fines were appealed, leading to a complex series of legal challenges and a reopening of the investigation, resulting in revised fines of £63.3 million for Pfizer and £6.7 million for Flynn Pharma in 2022.

Juliette Enser, executive director of competition enforcement at the CMA, emphasised the importance of the judgment, stating that the drug is "vital" and "relied on by thousands to prevent life-threatening seizures." She reiterated the CMA's finding that the companies had exploited their market positions to charge the NHS excessive prices. The court will now consider further submissions from both parties before making a final decision on whether to reinstate the CMA’s initial findings, including the imposed fines.

Source: City A.M.

Why this matters: This case is crucial for the NHS and UK taxpayers, as it addresses alleged excessive pricing of essential medicines, directly impacting healthcare budgets and the cost of public services. It reinforces the power of regulators to challenge practices that could exploit vulnerable patients and the health service.

What this means for you: What this means for you: As a UK taxpayer, this case has direct implications for how NHS funds are spent on essential medicines. A successful outcome for the CMA could help prevent future price gouging, potentially freeing up resources for other healthcare services and ensuring fair drug costs.

Related Articles

Get the news that matters.

Join thousands of readers getting the best of British news straight to their inbox.