WHY generic meds???

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
By law generic meds only have to be 80% of the name brand option. Generic are cheap cause there is less in em.


It is cheap because they do not have advertisement to drum up all the demands of "ask your doctor about [name brand]".

Doctors prescribing name brand drug first when generic (or even mirror reverse image of generic small molecule drugs with identical pathway) is just plain wrong. Mother in law was prescribed some $300 medicine when wife found out that it is a new patented drug with the molecule that's mirror to an older version with patent already expired. Same operational pathway, targeting the same receptor, at the same dosage.

Why is the doctor not prescribing the old one that cost $5-10 but instead prescribing the $300 one? The hot pharmaceutical sales lady who take him out to lunch once a month would be a start.

 

[CivicFan]

The economics of pharmaceutical R&D, marketing and sales is quite complex. "Name Brand" is a very simplistic way of putting it.

short paper on the costs

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

Doctors prescribing name brand drug first when generic (or even mirror reverse image of generic small molecule drugs with identical pathway) is just plain wrong. Mother in law was prescribed some $300 medicine when wife found out that it is a new patented drug with the molecule that's mirror to an older version with patent already expired. Same operational pathway, targeting the same receptor, at the same dosage.


Mirror identical didn't work for thalidomide.

 

[65cuda]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Clevy
By law generic meds only have to be 80% of the name brand option. Generic are cheap cause there is less in em.


It is cheap because they do not have advertisement to drum up all the demands of "ask your doctor about [name brand]".

Doctors prescribing name brand drug first when generic (or even mirror reverse image of generic small molecule drugs with identical pathway) is just plain wrong. Mother in law was prescribed some $300 medicine when wife found out that it is a new patented drug with the molecule that's mirror to an older version with patent already expired. Same operational pathway, targeting the same receptor, at the same dosage.

Why is the doctor not prescribing the old one that cost $5-10 but instead prescribing the $300 one? The hot pharmaceutical sales lady who take him out to lunch once a month would be a start.

In fairness doctors also say that many people only want the latest and greatest drug that is available. Never mind that they tell them that the older stuff is as good and a lot cheaper. Maybe we should do like some other countries and not allow the advertisement. The doctor is suppose to be the one with the knowledge. Trying to self medicate yourself and also be a problem.

 

[65cuda]

The economics is quite high, but let's not forget that the reward is even higher. These companies make billions off these drugs and spend a ton on advertising and handouts to the doctors. They do everything possible to keep from having a drug go from the name brand to the generic catagory.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
Maybe we should do like some other countries and not allow the advertisement. The doctor is suppose to be the one with the knowledge.



That's something that amazed us when we were in the States last year, the drug adds through the news etc. etc.

It also amazed our GP when I showed him the subliminal ads in his eye charts.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

Doctors prescribing name brand drug first when generic (or even mirror reverse image of generic small molecule drugs with identical pathway) is just plain wrong. Mother in law was prescribed some $300 medicine when wife found out that it is a new patented drug with the molecule that's mirror to an older version with patent already expired. Same operational pathway, targeting the same receptor, at the same dosage.


Mirror identical didn't work for thalidomide.


But why wasn't the cheaper generic tried first?

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
The economics is quite high, but let's not forget that the reward is even higher. These companies make billions off these drugs and spend a ton on advertising and handouts to the doctors. They do everything possible to keep from having a drug go from the name brand to the generic catagory.


Even worse, these drug companies would "trade" with each other to postpone the introduction of generic drugs of each other to preserve profit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/business/13generic.html

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
The economics is quite high, but let's not forget that the reward is even higher. These companies make billions off these drugs and spend a ton on advertising and handouts to the doctors. They do everything possible to keep from having a drug go from the name brand to the generic catagory.

You forgot to mention the 2 tons of money they spend on research, clinical trials, and product liability

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
The economics is quite high, but let's not forget that the reward is even higher. These companies make billions off these drugs and spend a ton on advertising and handouts to the doctors. They do everything possible to keep from having a drug go from the name brand to the generic catagory.

You forgot to mention the 2 tons of money they spend on research, clinical trials, and product liability


Very true, that's why a lot of the work these companies do are "applying the same drugs to new applications" and slight update to these drugs with new patents.

Going from a molecule to a metabolized version of this molecule in your body to another molecule that bind to the same receptor for the same result. Those are the quick money maker. It doesn't have to be better, just have to be different and then do the sales and advertisement to drum up demand.

That's how capitalism roll. Why spend the money and risk to solve the problem when you only need to keep adding a new revision of the same drug with new patents?

The biggest cost is still finding new types of molecules, new pathway, new receptors that work, but the chances of finding them is usually very low. Even lower probability if you exclude university research that discover these molecules and let everyone benefit them.

 

[65cuda]

Oh I feel so sorry for them right now. Please forgive me for thinking that it is wrong for drug companies to keep playing the patent system to keep their drug in place. Please forgive me for them marketing drugs even after they know there is a problem in the intrest of their bottom line. Sorry but you might want to check how the drug companies lobby congress and how they play the system. You might want to check how they charge those in the US far more than they do in other countries. Therefore actually I'm not sorry at all for drug companies.

 

[CivicFan]

Actually, generics can sometimes be inferior to the brand name pills. The formula is the same but there is a lot more going in a pill than the formula. There could be compounds that increase the effectiveness of the medicine that might not be present in the generic medication.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Actually, generics can sometimes be inferior to the brand name pills. The formula is the same but there is a lot more going in a pill than the formula. There could be compounds that increase the effectiveness of the medicine that might not be present in the generic medication.


But if that's the case how do they get FDA approval in the first place?

And by how much "inferior" are you talking about?

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Actually, generics can sometimes be inferior to the brand name pills. The formula is the same but there is a lot more going in a pill than the formula. There could be compounds that increase the effectiveness of the medicine that might not be present in the generic medication.


But if that's the case how do they get FDA approval in the first place?

And by how much "inferior" are you talking about?


By law, generic medication MUST have the exact same active ingredients than do the brand names. The compounding (other stuff in the pill) are not regulated as far as generic v. brand name goes.

The degree of inferiority due to the compounding differences may vary from drug to drug.

Here is a good read.

 

[opus1]

I have a family member who is a pharmacist and they basically said the same thing as CivicFan, the drug may have the same active ingredients, but a generic is not always exactly the same and the path to the end results is also not going to be the same.

There *is* a reason generics are cheaper and it's not just lobby-money.