CMA slams pharma firms Pfizer and Flynn for illegal pricing
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has provisionally found that Pfizer and Flynn abused their positions to overcharge the NHS for vital anti-epilepsy drugs.
Having gathered further evidence, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has reached a provisional view - known as a Statement of Objections - that Pfizer and Flynn broke competition law by charging unfairly high prices for phenytoin sodium capsules.
Following the overnight price increases by the companies, NHS spending on phenytoin sodium capsules rose from around £2m a year in 2012 to about £50m in 2013.
For over four years, Pfizer’s prices were between 780 per cent and 1,600 per cent higher than it had previously charged. Pfizer then supplied the drug to Flynn, which sold it to wholesalers and pharmacies at prices between 2,300 per cent and 2,600 per cent higher than those they had paid previously.
Andrea Coscelli, chief executive of the CMA, commented: “Thousands of patients depend on this drug to prevent life-threatening seizures as a result of their epilepsy.
“As the CAT recognised, this is a matter that is important for [the] government, for the public as patients and taxpayers, and for the pharmaceutical industry itself. Protecting these patients, the NHS and the taxpayers who fund it, is our priority.”
Want your business, product or service to be seen regionally and nationally? Bdaily helps you get your story in front of the right audience, every day. Find out how Bdaily can help →
Join more than 55,000 subscribers by signing up to our daily bulletin each morning here.
Enjoy the read? Get Bdaily delivered.
Sign up to receive our popular morning National email for free.
Taking advantage of the opportunities ahead
Accountability isn’t the enemy of empathy
Act now to avoid a last-minute tax scramble
How inner-city living can transform a city by the sea
Artificial intelligence's value is the time it gives back
Why we must break the magnetic pull of London
AI scepticism is healthy - inaction isn't
What does NPPF mean for planning gain and pricing?
What new NPPF rules mean for landowners
The hidden cost squeezing Britain's economy
Teesside deserves more than cashback devolution
Construction must be built on commercial discipline