A drop-sized law suit

Don’t roll your eyes: Eye drop users everywhere have had it happen. Tilt your head back, drip a drop in your eye and part of that drop always seems to dribble down your cheek. But what most people see as an annoyance, some prescription drop users say, is grounds for a lawsuit. Bottles made by drug companies dispense drops that are too large, leaving wasted medication running down their faces, they say. And major pharma players including Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Merck and Pfizer are now asking the Supreme Court to get involved in the case. Patients using eye drops to treat glaucoma and other eye conditions argue that they would pay less for their treatment if their bottles of medication were designed to drip smaller drops. They say companies could redesign the droppers on their bottles but have chosen not to. The companies, for their part, have said the patients shouldn’t be able to sue in federal court because their argument that they would have paid less for treatment is based on a bottle that doesn’t exist and speculation about how it would affect their costs if it did. They point out that the size of their drops was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and redesigned bottles would require FDA approval. The cost of changes could be passed on to patients, possibly resulting in treatment that costs more, they say. Courts haven’t seen eye to eye on whether patients should be able to sue. That’s why the drugmakers are asking the Supreme Court to step in. Picture shows the Supreme Court, in Washington. — JESSICA GRESKO/AP

Don’t roll your eyes: Eye drop users everywhere have had it happen. Tilt your head back, drip a drop in your eye and part of that drop always seems to dribble down your cheek. But what most people see as an annoyance, some prescription drop users say, is grounds for a lawsuit. Bottles made by drug companies dispense drops that are too large, leaving wasted medication running down their faces, they say. And major pharma players including Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Merck and Pfizer are now asking the Supreme Court to get involved in the case. Patients using eye drops to treat glaucoma and other eye conditions argue that they would pay less for their treatment if their bottles of medication were designed to drip smaller drops. They say companies could redesign the droppers on their bottles but have chosen not to. The companies, for their part, have said the patients shouldn’t be able to sue in federal court because their argument that they would have paid less for treatment is based on a bottle that doesn’t exist and speculation about how it would affect their costs if it did. They point out that the size of their drops was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and redesigned bottles would require FDA approval. The cost of changes could be passed on to patients, possibly resulting in treatment that costs more, they say. Courts haven’t seen eye to eye on whether patients should be able to sue. That’s why the drugmakers are asking the Supreme Court to step in. Picture shows the Supreme Court, in Washington. — JESSICA GRESKO/AP   | Photo Credit: J. Scott Applewhite

Eye drop users everywhere have had it happen. Tilt your head back, drip a drop in your eye and part of that drop always seems to dribble down your cheek. But what most people see as an annoyance, some prescription drop users say, is grounds for a lawsuit. Bottles made by drug companies dispense drops that are too large, leaving wasted medication running down their faces, they say. And major pharma players including Allergan, Bausch & Lomb, Merck and Pfizer are now asking the Supreme Court to get involved in the case. Patients using eye drops to treat glaucoma and other eye conditions argue that they would pay less for their treatment if their bottles of medication were designed to drip smaller drops. They say companies could redesign the droppers on their bottles but have chosen not to. The companies, for their part, have said the patients shouldn’t be able to sue in federal court because their argument that they would have paid less for treatment is based on a bottle that doesn’t exist and speculation about how it would affect their costs if it did. They point out that the size of their drops was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and redesigned bottles would require FDA approval. The cost of changes could be passed on to patients, possibly resulting in treatment that costs more, they say. Courts haven’t seen eye to eye on whether patients should be able to sue. That’s why the drugmakers are asking the Supreme Court to step in. JESSICA GRESKO/AP