|
|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||||
This excerpt taken from the LLY 10-K filed Feb 28, 2007. Legal and
Governmental Matters
In December 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit affirmed a district court ruling upholding the validity
of our Zyprexa patent. We are very confident we will maintain
our U.S. patent protection on Zyprexa until 2011.
We have reached agreements with claimants attorneys
involved in U.S. Zyprexa product liability litigation to
settle a total of approximately 28,500 claims against us
relating to the medication. Approximately 1,300 claims remain.
As a result of our product liability exposures, the substantial
majority of which were related to
-18-
Zyprexa, we recorded net pretax charges of $1.07 billion in
the second quarter of 2005 and $494.9 million in the fourth
quarter of 2006.
In March 2004, we were notified by the U.S. Attorneys
office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that it had
commenced a civil investigation relating to our
U.S. marketing and promotional practices.
In the United States, implementation of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003
(MMA), which provides a prescription drug benefit under the
Medicare program, took effect January 1, 2006. In 2006, we
experienced a one-time sales benefit as a result of MMA;
however, in the long term there is additional risk of increased
pricing pressures. While the MMA prohibits the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS) from directly negotiating
prescription drug prices with manufacturers, legislation was
passed in early 2007 by the U.S. House of Representatives
that would require HHS to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical
manufacturers. This legislation will be considered by the
U.S. Senate. MMA retains the authority of the Secretary of
HHS to prohibit the importation of prescription drugs.
Legislation to allow for broad-scale importation has been
presented to both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The proposed legislation could remove that authority and allow
for the importation of products into the U.S. If adopted,
such legislation would likely have a negative effect on our
U.S. sales. Current importation language allows for
medication to be carried in person from Canada to the U.S. and
does not authorize mail or Internet importation. Further, the
language disallows certain medications including injectibles. We
believe the expanded prescription drug coverage for seniors
under the MMA has further alleviated the perceived need for a
federal importation scheme. However, notwithstanding the federal
law that continues to prohibit all but the very narrow drug
importation detailed above, several states have implemented
importation schemes for their citizens, usually involving a
website that links patients to selected Canadian pharmacies.
The successful implementation of the MMA may relieve some state
budget pressures but is unlikely to result in reduced pricing
pressures at the state level. A majority of states have
implemented supplemental rebates and restricted formularies in
their Medicaid programs, and these programs are expected to
continue in the
post-MMA
environment. Moreover, under the 2005 federal Deficit Reduction
Act, states will have greater flexibility to impose new
cost-sharing requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries for
non-preferred prescription drugs that will result in certain
beneficiaries bearing more of the cost. Several states also are
attempting to extend discounted Medicaid prices to non-Medicaid
patients. As a result, we expect pressures on pharmaceutical
pricing to continue.
As it relates to the Medicare program, Lilly has implemented the
LillyMedicareAnswers program. Lilly- MedicareAnswers is a new
patient assistance program that provides certain eligible
Medicare Part D enrolled patients access to a one
months-supply of select medications for a $25
administrative fee per prescription. Medications available via
the program include Zyprexa,
Forteo®,
and
Humatrope®.
International operations also are generally subject to extensive
price and market regulations, and there are many proposals for
additional cost-containment measures, including proposals that
would directly or indirectly impose additional price controls or
reduce the value of our intellectual property protection.
|
| |||||||