{"id":13697,"date":"2019-07-30T10:09:48","date_gmt":"2019-07-30T14:09:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=13697"},"modified":"2019-07-30T10:09:48","modified_gmt":"2019-07-30T14:09:48","slug":"three-pharmaceutical-companies-settle-with-california-over-deals-to-keep-generic-medications-off-the-market","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=13697","title":{"rendered":"Three pharmaceutical companies settle with California over deals to keep generic medications off the market"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>According to the California attorney general\u2019s office, two pharmaceutical companies will pay the state of California a total of nearly $70 million to settle allegations that they violated antitrust laws by making agreements to delay generic drugs. Regulators have said, \u201cPay-for-delay\u201d agreements &#8211; under which the maker of a brand-name drug pays other drugmakers to refrain from producing a generic version after the drug\u2019s patent expires keep drug prices high. Read <a href=\"https:\/\/www.latimes.com\/business\/story\/2019-07-29\/drugmakers-settle-california-pay-for-delay-lawsuits\">article here\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/scales.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-8964\" src=\"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/scales-232x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"232\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/scales-232x300.jpg 232w, https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/scales.jpg 340w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 232px) 100vw, 232px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<pre style=\"margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 20px; outline: 0px; border: 1px solid #eaeaea; color: #444444; text-transform: none; line-height: 1.4; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; overflow: auto; font-family: 'Courier 10 Pitch', Courier, monospace; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; word-spacing: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; orphans: 2; widows: 2; font-stretch: inherit; background-color: #ffffff; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit;\">Notice: The link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; medicarereport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the link\u2019s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or medicarereport.org.<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>According to the California attorney general\u2019s office, two pharmaceutical companies will pay the state of California a total of nearly<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,19,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13697","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health-care-finance","category-legal-actionscourt-decisions","category-part-dprescription-drugs"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13697","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13697"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13697\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13698,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13697\/revisions\/13698"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}