; and (ii) have unduly delayed the marketing of low-cost generic drugs contrary to free competition, the interests of consumers, and the principles underlying antitrust law. (C) Because of the price disparity between brand name and generic drugs, such agreements are more profitable for both the brand and generic manufacturers than competition and will become increasingly common unless prohibited. (D) These agreements result in consumers losing the benefits that the 1984 Act was intended to provide. (7) In 2010, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ( Public Law 111–148 ) (referred to in this Act as the BPCIA ), was enacted with the intent of facilitating the early entry of biosimilar and interchangeable follow-on versions of branded biological products while preserving incentives for innovation. (8) Biological drugs play an important role in treating many serious illnesses, from cancers to genetic disorders. They are also expensive, representing more than 40 percent of all prescription drug spending. (9) Competition from biosimilar and interchangeable biological products promises to lower drug costs and increase patient access to biological medicines. But reverse payment settlement agreements also threaten to delay the entry of biosimilar and interchangeable biological products, which would undermine the goals of BPCIA. (b) Purposes The purposes of this Act are— (1) to enhance competition in the pharmaceutical market by stopping anticompetitive agreements between brand name and generic drug and biosimilar biological product manufacturers that limit, delay, or otherwise prevent competition from generic drugs and biosimilar biological products