{"id":154,"date":"2019-07-22T14:49:59","date_gmt":"2019-07-22T18:49:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/?p=154"},"modified":"2019-07-22T14:49:59","modified_gmt":"2019-07-22T18:49:59","slug":"ftc-issues-report-on-its-authority-under-section-5-of-the-ftc-act-to-challenge-pharmaceutical-drug-price-increases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/2019\/07\/22\/ftc-issues-report-on-its-authority-under-section-5-of-the-ftc-act-to-challenge-pharmaceutical-drug-price-increases\/","title":{"rendered":"FTC Issues Report on Its Authority Under Section 5 of the FTC Act to Challenge Pharmaceutical Drug Price Increases"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On June 24, 2019, in response to a directive from Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a\u00a0<a title=\"Federal Trade Commission Report on Standalone Section 5 to Address High Pharmaceutical Drug and Biologic Prices\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ftc.gov\/system\/files\/documents\/reports\/ftc-report-standalone-section-5-address-high-pharmaceutical-drug-biologic-prices\/p180101_drug_prices_appropriations_report_6-27-19.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">report<\/a>\u00a0to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the use of the FTC\u2019s standalone authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to address high pharmaceutical prices. The committees had directed the FTC to examine, in consultation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Congress\u2019 intent regarding unfair methods of competition in Section 5 and in the FTC\u2019s standalone Section 5 authority regarding unreasonable price increases, including those that occur over multiple years, on off-patent pharmaceutical drugs and biologics. The report broke down along party lines. The FTC\u2019s Republican majority concluded that attempts by the Commission to rein in unreasonable drug prices using Section 5 alone, untethered from accepted theories of antitrust liability under the Sherman Act, are unlikely to find success in the courts. Democratic Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issued a dissenting statement in which they urged the FTC to examine ways to use its enforcement tools to restrain pharmaceutical pricing. Challenging high pharmaceutical drug prices has recently been a hotly debated political topic, and the report, along with the dissenting statement, will likely factor into that debate.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/ftc_issues_report_authority_section5_ftc_act_challenge_drug_price_0719.html\">View the full <em>Alert<\/em> on the Duane Morris LLP website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On June 24, 2019, in response to a directive from Congress, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a\u00a0report\u00a0to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the use of the FTC\u2019s standalone authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to address high pharmaceutical prices. The committees had directed the FTC to examine, in &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/2019\/07\/22\/ftc-issues-report-on-its-authority-under-section-5-of-the-ftc-act-to-challenge-pharmaceutical-drug-price-increases\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;FTC Issues Report on Its Authority Under Section 5 of the FTC Act to Challenge Pharmaceutical Drug Price Increases&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[383,380,384,382,381,29,379],"ppma_author":[521],"class_list":["post-154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aj-rudowitz","tag-antitrust","tag-appropriations-commitee","tag-christopher-casey","tag-drug-prices","tag-fda","tag-federal-trade-commission"],"authors":[{"term_id":521,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}