To sue or not to sue seems to be the question

This week 2 news headlines have shown the fragmented approach by pharma to the US government's Inflation reduction Act (IRA) approach to negotiate drug prices, and perhaps don't help the cause of pharma in what may be a long period of negotiation.

• After finding that their drug Xtandi was not on the initial list of drugs for price negotiation when they and analysts thought it would be, Sanofi leaders withdrew the company's law suit against the federal government's IRA
• After finding that their drug Entresto was on the same list, Novartis decided to sue the federal government

What are we to make of this "Musical chairs" approach to suing the federal government?

Firstly, it doesn't look like a consistent approach from pharma. Au contraire. It looks somewhat self-serving; if my drugs not on the list I'm not interested, if it is I am.

Secondly, if one reads the press releases from those companies that have filed suit they talk a lot about the IRA being unconstitutional and against the best interests of patients because it damages product development. However, this dipping in and dipping out of law suits suggests that companies only care about the constitution and patients if it affects their company directly. Hardly the perception pharma wants to create as it challenges the IRA. Surely, a consistent and pan-industry approach would work better, presumably driven by PHRMA.

Maybe I'm being a little hard on pharma. After all, their lobbyists (of which pharma is the industry that spends more and has more lobbyists than any other industry) will be working hard on individual members of congress to put their message across. Who was it said America has the best democracy money can buy? And some companies are consistent in their approach to the IRA, maintaining their legal challenges. Furthermore, I'm sure many companies are developing campaigns for the public and HCPs to put their position across strongly and clearly.

However, it doesn't help the public perception of what is happening if pharma companies are apparently starting and stopping law suits based on the likely impact on the prices of their drugs alone. Bearing in mind that recent surveys show that, unsurprisingly, patients and physicians believe drug prices in the USA are too high, you'd think pharma would recognize that it is starting from a difficult place and can not afford to be seen as divided and self serving.

This author hopes that pharma can get its act together and put forward a consistent and pan industry perspective. If product development, patient choice and the constitution are at stake, and goodness knows the constitution has had its challenges over the last few years, then these are things worth fighting for, worth coming together over, and worth talking clearly to patients and physicians about so that they understand the pharma perspective. Let's hope that pharma can rise above the perceived self serving actions of this week, put a strong public face forward, not just a strong approach by lobbyists in the corridors of Congress, that wins arguments in the public domain, and puts over a strong message about the future of pharma development and pricing. This challenge represents an opportunity for pharma to take steps to improve its tarnished reputation. I sincerely hope it takes it.