Due to the high cost of bringing a drug to market, are drug companies justified in how much they charge? Is the non-generic time period justified?

High drug prices are the result of the approach the United States has taken to granting government-protected monopolies to drug manufacturers, combined with coverage requirements imposed on government-funded drug benefits. The most realistic short-term strategies to address high prices include enforcing more stringent requirements for the award and extension of exclusivity rights; enhancing competition by ensuring timely generic drug availability; providing greater opportunities for meaningful price negotiation by governmental payers; generating more evidence about comparative cost-effectiveness of therapeutic alternatives; and more effectively educating patients, prescribers, payers, and policy makers about these choices. Although prices are often justified by the high cost of drug development, there is no evidence of an association between research and development costs and prices; rather, prescription drugs are priced in the United States primarily on the basis of what the market will bear. Brand-name pharmaceutical companies can delay generic competition that lowers prices by agreeing to pay a generic competitor to hold its competing product off the market for a certain period of time. These so-called "pay-for-delay" agreements have arisen as part of patent litigation settlement agreements between brand-name and generic pharmaceutical companies. "Pay-for-delay" agreements are "win-win" for the companies: brand-name pharmaceutical prices stay high, and the brand and generic share the benefits of the brand's monopoly profits. Consumers lose, however: they miss out on generic prices that can be as much as 90 percent less than brand prices. For example, brand-name medication that costs $300 per month might be sold as a generic for as little as $30 per month.