Statement from Ralph G. Neas, President and CEO of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association on the Mutual v. Bartlett Supreme Court Ruling

Published Online: Monday, June 24, 2013
Follow Pharmacy_Times:
PRESS RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC (June 24, 2013) — “Today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Mutual v. Bartlett case upholds a key principle: decisions about the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs should rest with scientific experts at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

When it comes to decisions on safety and approval of prescription medicine, the FDA is best equipped to make judgments that affect patients. The experts at FDA alone have the scientific knowledge, regulatory experience, and complete data to make these decisions.

The FDA’s job is to evaluate drugs on the science and make decisions that balance safety and risk with the need for access to life-saving medicines. Millions of patients rely on drugs like sulindac, which has been on the market for more than 30 years. It was prescribed and dispensed more than 300 million times between 2007-2012 with a typical safety profile. Decisions with this much at stake belong in the hands of the scientific, public health and regulatory experts at the FDA.

Related Articles
A former pharmacist is appealing his case to the US Supreme Court after being sentenced to federal prison for smearing liquid mercury around a medical center.
For many pharmacy organizations, the Supreme Court King v. Burwell decision upholding the Affordable Care Act’s tax subsidies fended off potential confusion for patients concerning health insurance.
In a win for the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 that tax subsidies will be provided to all individuals who purchase health insurance, regardless of whether the plans were bought on a marketplace created by a state or the federal government.
Many pharmacy students advocate for provider status, but how often do they engage in other political matters?
Latest Issues
$auto_registration$