You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 265 No. 7, February 20, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Clinical Investigation
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Orphan Drug Act

The First 7 Years

Carolyn H. Asbury, PhD

JAMA. 1991;265(7):893-897.


Abstract

The 1983 Orphan Drug Act sought to increase market incentives and decrease regulatory barriers for products used to treat rare ("orphan") diseases. Major provisions included market exclusivity, tax credits, and regulatory process clarifications. This analysis compares pre- and post-Act industry and government data to examine changes associated with the law. While industry sponsored 34 marketed and 24 experimental orphan drugs in the 17 years prior to the Act, it has sponsored 39 of 42 marketed orphan products in the 7 years since the Act. An additional 301 experimental products have orphan designation. While 25 of 40 marketed orphan products reportedly had annual sales of less than $1 million, product sales for three conditions are more than $100 million annually. This prompted changes in the law, passed by Congress in 1990, but vetoed. Overall, the law has been associated with an increase in orphan product development. The law's costs and benefits to companies, patients, and the public should be examined if future changes are proposed.

(JAMA. 1991;265:893-897)



Author Affiliations

From The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ.


Footnotes

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and official endorsement by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is not intended and should not be inferred.

Reprint requests to The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, PO Box 2316, Princeton, NJ 08543-2316 (Dr Asbury).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Alternative Routes of Drug Administration---Advantages and Disadvantages (Subject Review)
Committee on Drugs
Pediatrics 1997;100:143-152.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Orphan Drug Act: Should It Be Changed?
Sanders
Arch Intern Med 1993;153:2623-2625.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1991 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.