A War Against Generics, State By State
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // June 17th, 2008 // 4:18 pm
Consumers around the country could face higher costs and delays getting prescriptions filled if a new push by major drugmakers to curb sales of generics wins out, The Baltimore Sun writes.
Brand-name drugmakers have been waging war against inexpensive generics for years at the national level. Now, they are taking their fight to the states, promoting proposals that would mean pharmacists could no longer automatically do a switch, the paper explains.
The state legislation could result in long delays filling scrips at a local pharmacy and undermine a key effort to restrain health care costs, critics tell the Sun. Measures favorable to brand-name drugmakers have been considered by 27 states and approved by two - Utah and Tennessee - over the past year, according to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, which opposes the changes.
Only the FDA can certify a generic is safe enough to be substituted for a brand-name med. Once that happens, states can give local pharmacists the power to substitute a lower-priced generic when a patient presents a prescription, unless the prescribing doc orders the brand-name med. Nearly all states give pharmacists that option or require them to make the switch.
The legislation being pushed at the state level would make a switch more difficult by requiring pharmacists to inform docs or get their permission before substituting a generic. The industry-backed legislation began appearing in scattered statehouses last year, but is now picking up steam.
Opponents say the fight over generic epilepsy drugs, the most common subject of legislation, is typical of the statehouse campaign. Three brand-name epilepsy meds - Abbott’s Depakote, Glaxo’s Lamictal and J&J’s Topamax - that earn more than $5 billion a year in sales lose patent protection this year. Bills to restrict generics have come up for debate in 21 states this year, and Utah passed a law.
Dan
Aside from pharmacies make more money on generics, these days, the doctor often has a box to check on the script he writes as to whether or not a switch can happen if there is a generic available. So implementing a law to prevent this is pointless, as the doctor would typically agree with a generic, as about 70 percent of scripts the doctor writes today are for generic meds in the first place.
Just A Thought
Major Drug Manufacturer: Pfizer
Branded Drug: Dilantin
Drug Type: AED (epilepsy med)
Last September Dilantin it was changed.
Med changes can be dangerous for epileptics. That is the very argument for this legislation. Yet this major manufacturer changed their drug. Excuse me, but how can they give us something less yet expect insurers to not give us something less?
Will your drug be next?
Step up here and hollar NO!
* Not until we know that branded drugs will be consistant, and provide better results than generics.
* Not until the FDA forces major manufacturers adhere to their proven formulas.
* Not before we are guaranteed that lessor quality ingredients will not be used.
* Not before this is addressed and repaired for the damaged consumers of this altered medication.
There is no point in this legislation until these things are addressed.
It’s not for the benefit of the patient unless the drug companies are held to the highest standards.
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/05/a-new-version-of-dilantin-is-giving-pfizer-fits/
Tell the FDA and Pfizer to address this first. Or just say NO.
Just A Thought
Dan, our doctors wrote No Substitutions on our prescriptions. But because Pfizer kept the same name, these prescriptions were filled with their altered formula, causing us the very damage that any generic could.
Jack2
Dan the doctor normally has to check a box (Dispense as Written or DAW) when they DON’T want a generic substituted. The doctor has to proactively prevent the swap, not proactively permit it - as your post implies.
It would add a step (the pharmacist calling the doctor) to substitute a generic.
harpy
Another battle in the war between pharma and insurance - we are just the pawns.