When a brand-name drug loses patent protection, the race to sell the first generic version begins. But here’s the twist: the company that made the original drug might also launch its own generic version - right alongside the first generic. This isn’t a coincidence. It’s strategy. And it changes everything about how prices drop, who profits, and what patients actually pay.
What’s the difference between a first generic and an authorized generic?
A first generic is the first company to successfully challenge a brand-name drug’s patent and get FDA approval to sell a generic version. This company gets a special reward: 180 days of exclusive rights to sell that generic. During that time, no other generic can enter the market. The idea behind this rule, written into the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, was simple: reward companies willing to spend millions and take legal risks to break drug monopolies. In return, they get a head start on the market, often capturing 80% or more of sales.
An authorized generic is different. It’s made by the same company that makes the brand-name drug - or by a partner they’ve given permission to. It’s the exact same pill, same factory, same packaging, just sold under a generic label. No new FDA review is needed because it’s based on the original drug’s approval (NDA), not a new generic application (ANDA). That means it can hit the market in days, not months or years.
So here’s the real conflict: the first generic spends years fighting patents, building supply chains, and paying legal fees. Then, the moment they launch, the brand company drops its own version - identical in every way - and suddenly the market is split in half. The first generic isn’t alone anymore. It’s fighting its own maker.
Timing is everything - and brand companies know it
Brand companies don’t guess when to launch their authorized generic. They time it with military precision. Research from Health Affairs (2022) shows that 73% of authorized generics launch within 90 days of the first generic hitting shelves. Nearly half - 41% - launch on the exact same day.
Take Lyrica (pregabalin), a nerve pain drug made by Pfizer. When Teva launched the first generic in July 2019, Pfizer immediately rolled out its own authorized generic through Greenstone LLC. Within weeks, Teva’s market share dropped from 80% to under 50%. Pfizer’s version grabbed 30% of sales right away. Teva didn’t get the windfall it expected. Pfizer didn’t lose the market - it just changed the rules.
This isn’t rare. It’s standard. In cardiovascular drugs, CNS medications, and metabolic conditions - the most profitable categories - this tactic is used over and over. Companies like Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche have all used it. The goal? To prevent the first generic from ever gaining full control of the market. And it works.
Why does this hurt patients and the system?
Generic drugs are supposed to slash prices. When a brand drug goes generic, prices usually drop 80-90%. But when an authorized generic enters during the first generic’s exclusivity window, that drop shrinks to 65-75%. That might not sound like much, but it adds up fast.
RAND Corporation estimates this tactic costs the U.S. healthcare system billions each year. Why? Because the first generic can’t undercut the authorized version. They’re identical. So instead of a race to the bottom, you get a stalemate. Both sell at similar prices. The savings are real, but they’re half of what they could be.
And here’s the kicker: the brand company still makes money. They’re selling the same drug under two labels - one branded, one generic. They keep the manufacturing plant running, the supply chain intact, and the profits flowing. Meanwhile, the first generic company, which took all the risk, sees its projected revenue cut in half.
The Hatch-Waxman Act was meant to fix this - but it didn’t
The Hatch-Waxman Act was designed to speed up generic entry and lower prices. It gave the first generic 180 days of exclusivity to make up for the cost of litigation. But it never accounted for the brand company launching its own generic. That loophole turned the incentive system upside down.
Instead of rewarding innovation in generic manufacturing, the system now rewards brand companies for copying their own products. The FDA approves both types, but treats them differently. First generics need full bioequivalence testing. Authorized generics don’t. That’s not a mistake - it’s by design. But it’s also not fair.
The FDA approved 80 first generics in 2017 alone - but less than 10% of generic applications get approved on the first try. Backlogs can stretch approvals to three years. Meanwhile, authorized generics can launch in under 30 days once the brand company decides to pull the trigger.
Who wins? Who loses?
Brand companies win. They keep control. They protect profits. They even get credit for “increasing competition” while quietly eliminating the real threat.
Authorized generics sometimes get praised by groups like the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) for “bringing down prices faster.” But that’s misleading. They don’t bring down prices faster than a true generic would - they prevent the price from dropping as far as it should.
First generic manufacturers lose. They invest $5-10 million per drug, spend years in court, and then get undercut by the very company they fought to unseat. Many mid-sized generics now say the window for profitable entry has shrunk to 45-60 days. Some have stopped challenging patents altogether.
Patients and insurers lose too. Higher prices mean higher out-of-pocket costs. Medicare and Medicaid pay more. Employers pay more in premiums. The savings that should have gone to the system are siphoned back to the brand company.
What’s changing now?
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 took a small but important step. It explicitly says authorized generics are not considered true generic competitors when Medicare negotiates drug prices. That’s a recognition that these aren’t the same as independent generics.
Some legal challenges are mounting. The FTC has gone after “pay-for-delay” deals - where brand companies pay generics to delay entry. But those deals often involve authorized generics too. Enforcement is slow and inconsistent.
Meanwhile, industry projections show authorized generics will make up 25-30% of all generic prescriptions by 2027, up from 18% in 2022. That’s not growth - it’s a takeover.
Leading generic manufacturers are adapting. Some now build dual strategies: launch a first generic, but also have a backup plan - a second generic in the pipeline, or a partnership with a different manufacturer to launch a version that’s not identical, just close enough to compete. Others are focusing on complex generics that are harder to copy, like inhalers or injectables.
But the truth is, unless the rules change, the game is rigged. The first generic still gets the 180-day prize. But the brand company holds the keys to the vault.
What does this mean for the future of generic drugs?
The system was built to break monopolies. Now, it’s being used to protect them.
Without reform, the incentive to challenge patents will keep fading. Why spend millions on litigation if the brand company can just launch its own version the next day? The result? Fewer generics. Slower price drops. Higher costs for everyone.
Patients deserve real competition - not manufactured alternatives that look the same but serve the same corporate interests. The FDA, Congress, and payers need to treat authorized generics for what they are: a brand-name product in disguise. And they need to fix the rules so the first generic can actually win.
Write a comment
Your email address will be restricted to us