Drug Competition Enhancement Act
Click any stage to learn more about the legislative process.
Would prohibit 'product hopping' — a practice where brand-name drug manufacturers switch patients to a slightly modified follow-on product just as a generic competitor is about to enter the market — and would give the Federal Trade Commission explicit authority to stop the practice and seek financial remedies.
The bill targets a strategy that critics say extends pharmaceutical monopolies beyond the life of original patents, keeping lower-cost generics off pharmacy shelves and sustaining higher prices for patients and insurers.
What this bill would do
What it would do
The bill would add a new section to the Federal Trade Commission Act declaring product hopping an unfair method of competition. It covers two forms of the practice: a 'hard switch,' where a manufacturer pulls the original drug from the market and sells a modified follow-on version instead; and a 'soft switch,' where a manufacturer takes other actions — short of withdrawal — that unfairly disadvantage the original drug relative to the follow-on product. Both forms must occur during a window after the manufacturer learns the FDA has received a generic or biosimilar application referencing its drug. Manufacturers may rebut a product-hopping finding by showing the switch was motivated by patient safety concerns, an uncontrollable supply disruption, or legitimate pro-competitive reasons unrelated to blocking generic entry.
The bill would not reach reformulations required by the FDA or those necessary to comply with other laws, and it would not prohibit truthful promotional marketing for the follow-on product. It preserves all existing antitrust law and adds an FTC rulemaking authority to define terms used in the new provision.
Key provisions
- 1Would prohibit product hopping — both 'hard switches' (withdrawing the original drug from market while selling a follow-on product) and 'soft switches' (taking other actions that unfairly disadvantage the original drug to impede generic competition) — as an unfair method of competition.
- 2Would allow manufacturers to rebut a product-hopping finding by demonstrating the switch was made regardless of generic competition and was driven by patient safety, an uncontrollable supply disruption, or legitimate pro-competitive reasons unrelated to financial effects of reduced competition.
- 3Would authorize the FTC to institute administrative proceedings or bring federal court suits to temporarily or permanently enjoin product hopping and to seek disgorgement of unjust profits and restitution for those harmed, each within a five-year limitations period.
- 4Would allow manufacturers subject to a final FTC cease-and-desist order to seek judicial review in the D.C. Circuit or the circuit where their ultimate parent entity is incorporated, within 30 days of the order.
- 5Would authorize the FTC to issue notice-and-comment rules to define any terms used in the new product-hopping provision that are not already defined in the bill.
Who would be affected
Brand-name and biological drug manufacturers that hold FDA-approved reference drugs and could face product-hopping allegations. Generic and biosimilar drugmakers whose market entry could be blocked by the practice. Patients, insurers, and pharmacy benefit managers who pay higher prices when generic competition is delayed. The Federal Trade Commission, which would gain new enforcement tools and rulemaking authority.
Why it matters
If enacted, drug manufacturers could face FTC enforcement actions, injunctions, and orders to disgorge profits or pay restitution any time they are found to have switched patients to a follow-on product for the purpose of blocking generic entry. For consumers and payers, the practical effect would be broader generic availability in markets where product hopping has historically extended brand-name pricing power well past the expiration of original patents.
What would change
Changes to existing law
Amends Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) (Sec. 2(a))
Adds a new Section 27 declaring product hopping an unfair method of competition and granting the FTC explicit enforcement, remedy, and rulemaking authority to address it.
Agencies directed to act
Effective dates
- New product-hopping prohibition applies to conduct and proceedings
How implementation would work
The FTC would enforce the new prohibition through administrative proceedings under Section 5(b) of the FTC Act or by bringing suit in federal district court. In court, the FTC could seek temporary or permanent injunctions, disgorgement of unjust enrichment, and restitution, each subject to a five-year limitations period. Manufacturers facing a final cease-and-desist order may petition for judicial review in the D.C. Circuit or the circuit where they are incorporated within 30 days. The FTC may also issue notice-and-comment rules to define statutory terms not already defined in the bill. The new section applies only to conduct occurring on or after the date of enactment.
Legislative status & sources
Latest action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 43.
Official CRS summary
Show the CRS summaryHide the CRS summary
This bill prohibits product hopping by drug manufacturers and authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce this prohibition.
Generally, product hopping describes a situation where, when the patents on a reference drug (or biological product) expire, the manufacturer switches to a follow-on product that is covered by a later-expiring patent. Under this bill, a follow-on product is a modified version of the reference drug that has an indication (what the drug is used for) that is identical or substantively similar to an indication of the reference drug.
The bill establishes a presumption that product hopping has occurred when a reference drug manufacturer, after receiving notice that the Food and Drug Administration has received an application to market a competing generic (or biosimilar) version, takes certain actions such as withdrawing the reference drug from the market and selling a follow-on product.
A drug manufacturer may rebut these presumptions by demonstrating that its conduct was not intended to limit competition.
The bill makes product hopping an unfair method of competition and provides for enforcement by the FTC. If the FTC has reason to believe a manufacturer has violated or is about to violate this prohibition on product hopping, the FTC may institute an administrative proceeding or bring suit in federal court to stop the manufacturer’s action and seek equitable remedies, including disgorgement of unjust profits or paying restitution to those harmed.
Legislative subjects
Administrative remedies; Civil actions and liability; Competition and antitrust; Consumer affairs; Drug safety, medical device, and laboratory regulation; Federal Trade Commission (FTC); Health; Health care costs and insurance; Inflation and prices; Intellectual property; Judicial review and appeals; Manufacturing; Prescription drugs