{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02585034013605442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.4, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Higher Drug Prices from Anticompetitive Conduct: Three Case Studies

Abstract U.S. consumers pay high drug prices. Brand-name drug companies claim that these prices are justified by pathbreaking research and development. But, sometimes the prices result from anticompetitive conduct. This article offers three case studies of how such behavior can increase price based on wakefulness drug Provigil, the allergic-reaction-treating EpiPen, and infection-treating Daraprim. The article contends that behavior that makes no sense other than by harming a competitor, that undercuts a regulatory regime, or that involves collusive conduct should not be protected. In targeting this behavior, antitrust scrutiny promises to lower drug prices.