In late April, the Ontario government’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announced it was taking legal action against seven generic firms, along with a number of pharmacies and wholesalers, for allegedly massaging professional allowances by re-selling drugs. Professional allowances are monies that generic drug manufacturers pay pharmacies for buying their prescription drug products, and the Ontario government has alleged that a number of firms were involved in a scheme whereby pharmacies bought greater stocks than they needed, claiming the monies against the stock, then returning what was not needed to wholesalers, which then also claimed monies for the returned stock. The seven companies involved included Taro Pharmaceuticals, Cobalt Pharmaceuticals, Genpharm, Teva’s subsidiary, Novopharm, Pharmascience, Sandoz Canada and ratiopharm. In total, the seven received Rebate Penalty Orders worth C$3.5 million (US$3.0 million), with Taro penalised the least, at C$22,512.68, and Genpharm and Novopharm the most, at C$1,791,957.71 and C$1,202,958.88, respectively.
The Ontario government explained that the professional allowances system had been shaken up as part of changes made by Bill 102 to the legislation that governs Ontario’s publicly funded drug programmes. For the Ontario Drug Benefit market, manufacturers could provide and pharmacies receive up to 20% of generic drug product sales per pharmacy in professional allowances. The allowances must then be used for activities outlined in the regulations, such as patient care that benefits customers. There was no limit on the amount of professional allowances relating to the private market. Drug manufacturers are required to report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care the amount of professional allowances paid, and pharmacies the amount received. Pharmacies are also required to report on how the allowances are spent. Any professional allowance payment not meeting the regulated requirements would be regarded as a rebate, and prohibited. The Ministry reviewed these reports and found discrepancies between the figures being given by generic firms and those being given by pharmacies, and this led to a series of audits being carried out at 14 locations, including three generic drug firms, five wholesalers and six pharmacies.
According to local reports, manufacturers claimed to have paid C$332 million (US$284 million) in rebates, whilst pharmacies claimed to have received only C$145 million (US$124 million). In view of this, the decision to fine the seven generic firms just C$3.5 million in total and all parties involved C$33.8 million (US$28.9 million) surely does not serve as much of a disincentive.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Congress pushes for biosimilars pathway
March 2009 saw the US Congress turn its attention to the issue of creating a regulatory pathway for biosimilars (see p. 11). However, two competing visions have emerged, both originating in the House of Representatives, and predictably, one is favoured by the generics industry whilst the other is favoured by the biotech industry. First out of the blocks was a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1427, Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act, introduced by Henry Waxman, Nathan Deal, Frank Pallone and Jo Ann Emerson. With Mr Waxman‟s name on the bill, it is no surprise that the generic industry favour this bill. However, within days, a second bill, H.R. 1548, the Pathway for Biosimilars Act, was introduced, again by a bipartisan group of representatives, including Anna Eshoo, Jay Inslee and Joe Barton. This bill has won the approval of BIO.
Both bills are broadly similar, basically attempting to set out a regulatory pathway on the same lines as the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, there is one essential difference between the two: H.R. 1427 gives original biologics five years of exclusivity, with certain modifications of existing drugs getting three years. These periods can be extended for up to a year. Meanwhile, H.R. 1548 provides up to 14 ½ years of data exclusivity for new biologics. It is clear why the generics industry would favour one bill whilst the biologic industry would favour the other. This also suggests the two competing bills are the result of lobbying by the various industry interests. This is backed up by the fact that Representative Inslee represents a Seattle-area district with a strong biotech sector. In addition, Mr Inslee also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as does Ms Eshoo and Mr Barton, who is the ranking member of the committee. However, the committee is chaired by Mr Waxman, who can also call on support from his cosponsors, Mr Pallone and Mr Deal, so clearly the two bills will be the subject of considerable debate. How the two bills fare in the committee stage will be an interesting battle of wills.
Outside of Congress, the various proponents and opponents of the two bills have shown differing approaches in how they are trying to sell their arguments. BIO has said that it has safety concerns over H.R. 1427, whilst applauds the alternative bill, H.R. 1548, for being safer. However, it seems likely that BIO‟s more immediate concern is over the length of data protection, which is a legitimate concern for the industry, but not necessarily one that will fly with the general public. BIO also expresses concern that H.R. 1427 would jeopardise biotech jobs, noting that the industry supports 7.5 million jobs in America, with these jobs generally being highly paid, and therefore good contributors to the economy. Conversely, the GPhA also uses the economy angle in its support of H.R. 1427, arguing that the bill would help the economy by strengthening healthcare whilst reducing costs to the public. The GPhA adds that the bill is supported by consumer, business and labour organisations. Both sides recognise that a regulatory pathway for biosimilars is inevitable. However, what shape that legislation will ultimately take is less clear, and will seemingly depend on political skills and an ability to convince public opinion.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Both bills are broadly similar, basically attempting to set out a regulatory pathway on the same lines as the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, there is one essential difference between the two: H.R. 1427 gives original biologics five years of exclusivity, with certain modifications of existing drugs getting three years. These periods can be extended for up to a year. Meanwhile, H.R. 1548 provides up to 14 ½ years of data exclusivity for new biologics. It is clear why the generics industry would favour one bill whilst the biologic industry would favour the other. This also suggests the two competing bills are the result of lobbying by the various industry interests. This is backed up by the fact that Representative Inslee represents a Seattle-area district with a strong biotech sector. In addition, Mr Inslee also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as does Ms Eshoo and Mr Barton, who is the ranking member of the committee. However, the committee is chaired by Mr Waxman, who can also call on support from his cosponsors, Mr Pallone and Mr Deal, so clearly the two bills will be the subject of considerable debate. How the two bills fare in the committee stage will be an interesting battle of wills.
Outside of Congress, the various proponents and opponents of the two bills have shown differing approaches in how they are trying to sell their arguments. BIO has said that it has safety concerns over H.R. 1427, whilst applauds the alternative bill, H.R. 1548, for being safer. However, it seems likely that BIO‟s more immediate concern is over the length of data protection, which is a legitimate concern for the industry, but not necessarily one that will fly with the general public. BIO also expresses concern that H.R. 1427 would jeopardise biotech jobs, noting that the industry supports 7.5 million jobs in America, with these jobs generally being highly paid, and therefore good contributors to the economy. Conversely, the GPhA also uses the economy angle in its support of H.R. 1427, arguing that the bill would help the economy by strengthening healthcare whilst reducing costs to the public. The GPhA adds that the bill is supported by consumer, business and labour organisations. Both sides recognise that a regulatory pathway for biosimilars is inevitable. However, what shape that legislation will ultimately take is less clear, and will seemingly depend on political skills and an ability to convince public opinion.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Despite speculation, Actavis branches out
Despite the ongoing speculation over the firm’s future, Actavis was busy in March branching out into new geographies. On 9th March 2009, the firm announced that it had entered the Irish market, with plans that will see the creation of up to 25 new jobs, and on 12th March, the firm and Japan’s ASKA Pharmaceutical signed a legal agreement to establish a joint company in Japan. Despite the headline, Actavis’ arrival in Ireland is not entirely new; a unit was set up there in 2008, and currently employs 11 people. However, Actavis’ presence in Ireland was relatively limited, and the new push will boost Actavis’ operations in the country. The firm aims to quickly ramp up its offering in Ireland in all channels, including hospital-specific, prescription and OTC drugs, and Actavis has stated that it has set double-digit growth targets for its first post-announcement year in the country, with an aim to rapidly expand its sales and marketing team in the coming months. Actavis is keen to play up its economic plus-points, noting in its announcement that its generics offer a reduction of up to 60% on the cost of drugs, ramming home the point by adding that there is a potential to save over 22 million euros (US$28.4 million) on six of the 20 new products it plans to launch in Ireland this year. Adding to the argument, Actavis was able to announce on the same day that it was launching gemcitabine in Ireland, along with other parts of Europe, on the day of patent expiry. This, the firm claims, could create savings in Ireland of 1.8 million euros (US$2.3 million), if all currently gemcitabine sales were switched to Actavis’ generic. However, whether such potential savings could be achieved is debateable; Ireland has low generic drug usage rates, and a government that has not shown much interest in changing this.
The move into Japan is entirely new for Actavis, however, and will see the firm set up business in a country it has had no previous business interests in. The agreement between Actavis and ASKA was first announced in November 2008, when the two firms concluded a preliminary agreement to establish a joint venture, to be called Actavis ASKA. Actavis will be the minority partner in the venture, holding 45% of its stocks, with ASKA holding the 55% stake. Japan has tended to be a somewhat difficult market for generic firms; it is second only to the United States in terms of healthcare spending, but the nation as a whole has always favoured the use of branded pharmaceuticals, with the result that generics have only managed to gain a toehold in the country. However, the situation has potential to change through the Japanese government, which, keen to reduce healthcare costs, introduced a generic substitution measure in April 2008, as part of an ongoing effort to increase generic market share in terms of volume. Although Actavis and ASKA have remained tight-lipped over what products will be marketed, the aim of the joint venture is for ASKA to enter the generics market using Actavis’ portfolio.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
The move into Japan is entirely new for Actavis, however, and will see the firm set up business in a country it has had no previous business interests in. The agreement between Actavis and ASKA was first announced in November 2008, when the two firms concluded a preliminary agreement to establish a joint venture, to be called Actavis ASKA. Actavis will be the minority partner in the venture, holding 45% of its stocks, with ASKA holding the 55% stake. Japan has tended to be a somewhat difficult market for generic firms; it is second only to the United States in terms of healthcare spending, but the nation as a whole has always favoured the use of branded pharmaceuticals, with the result that generics have only managed to gain a toehold in the country. However, the situation has potential to change through the Japanese government, which, keen to reduce healthcare costs, introduced a generic substitution measure in April 2008, as part of an ongoing effort to increase generic market share in terms of volume. Although Actavis and ASKA have remained tight-lipped over what products will be marketed, the aim of the joint venture is for ASKA to enter the generics market using Actavis’ portfolio.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Friday, March 13, 2009
Biosimilars in the US a step closer?
President Obama has released his budget proposals, including those for the Department of Health and Human Services. The proposal would provide US$76.8 billion to the HHS, whilst the FDA is requesting nearly US$2.4 billion, an increase of 5.7% over the budget that the agency received for the current fiscal year. Not surprisingly, much of the focus on the healthcare aspects of the budget have been on the headline-grabbing issues, such as healthcare reform and the doubling of funding for cancer research. However, another aspect of the budget which deserves attention is its proposal to establish a regulatory pathway to approve generic biologics.
This has long been a thorny issue for the United States with the result that the country has lagged behind the European Union, where a basic approval pathway for biosimilars has been hammered out. Progress on the issue in the US has never been forthcoming, with the opposing sides of the argument clashing on all issues surrounding biosimilars, from their safety and efficacy to the length of data exclusivity periods for biologic products. Whilst none of the parties may have actually said that they do not want biosimilars allowed, the efforts to torpedo any attempt to create a pathway have spoken volumes.
With the new budget proposal specifically seeking to create a regulatory pathway, the question of whether this logjam can be broken has to be asked. President Obama has a focus on healthcare issues in general, with an intention to make the system more cost-effective and widen coverage for more Americans. Mr Obama’s nomination, albeit a second attempt after Tom Daschle, of Kathleen Sebelius, currently the Governor of Kansas, to the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services can be seen to underscore a determination to make changes. Ms Sebelius is a popular Democratic governor in a Republican-dominated state, a position which suggests that bipartisan working has been an essential element of Ms Sebelius’ job, and in turn suggests the same approach will be used should she become the head of the HHS. Thus the job would be taken by somebody with experience in successfully negotiating between staunchly opposed interests, which would surely be essential in any effort to produce a working regulatory pathway for biosimilars. Prior to this nomination, Henry Waxman was voted by the Democratic Caucus to become Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which will have oversight on healthcare issues. Mr Waxman has long been known to support establishing a regulatory pathway for biosimilars, and his appointment must surely up the ante.
However, this is an issue which has long confounded its advocates, and whilst the political landscape may have moved to more fertile grounds for creating a pathway, the arguments against it have not been diminished. The issue of biosimilar safety will continue to be a problem, particularly for a litigious nation; entrenched arguments over data exclusivity will not now go away, and the savings through generic biologics will still be pitted against costs to American innovative companies and their employees. The push to create a pathway may have taken one step forward, but there still remains plenty of opportunity for its opponents to claw two steps back.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
This has long been a thorny issue for the United States with the result that the country has lagged behind the European Union, where a basic approval pathway for biosimilars has been hammered out. Progress on the issue in the US has never been forthcoming, with the opposing sides of the argument clashing on all issues surrounding biosimilars, from their safety and efficacy to the length of data exclusivity periods for biologic products. Whilst none of the parties may have actually said that they do not want biosimilars allowed, the efforts to torpedo any attempt to create a pathway have spoken volumes.
With the new budget proposal specifically seeking to create a regulatory pathway, the question of whether this logjam can be broken has to be asked. President Obama has a focus on healthcare issues in general, with an intention to make the system more cost-effective and widen coverage for more Americans. Mr Obama’s nomination, albeit a second attempt after Tom Daschle, of Kathleen Sebelius, currently the Governor of Kansas, to the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services can be seen to underscore a determination to make changes. Ms Sebelius is a popular Democratic governor in a Republican-dominated state, a position which suggests that bipartisan working has been an essential element of Ms Sebelius’ job, and in turn suggests the same approach will be used should she become the head of the HHS. Thus the job would be taken by somebody with experience in successfully negotiating between staunchly opposed interests, which would surely be essential in any effort to produce a working regulatory pathway for biosimilars. Prior to this nomination, Henry Waxman was voted by the Democratic Caucus to become Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which will have oversight on healthcare issues. Mr Waxman has long been known to support establishing a regulatory pathway for biosimilars, and his appointment must surely up the ante.
However, this is an issue which has long confounded its advocates, and whilst the political landscape may have moved to more fertile grounds for creating a pathway, the arguments against it have not been diminished. The issue of biosimilar safety will continue to be a problem, particularly for a litigious nation; entrenched arguments over data exclusivity will not now go away, and the savings through generic biologics will still be pitted against costs to American innovative companies and their employees. The push to create a pathway may have taken one step forward, but there still remains plenty of opportunity for its opponents to claw two steps back.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
FTC files testosterone gel complaint
On 2nd February 2009, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had filed a complaint against brand firm Solvay Pharmaceuticals and generic firms Watson Pharmaceuticals, Par Pharmaceutical Companies and Par’s partner, Paddock Laboratories regarding Solvay’s AndroGel testosterone gel product. The FTC has alleged that the companies violated section 5(a) of the FTC Act, arguing that Solvay entered into agreements with the firms which led to Solvay paying them in return for their not launching generic versions of AndroGel. The FTC’s actions see it return to a familiar and frustrating battle in which it argues that such payment arrangements are anti-competitive, whilst the companies involved argue the exact opposite.
The FTC’s position has for a long time been that agreements in which a branded company essentially pays a generic competitor not to launch a competing product hampers competition and is thus illegal. As an example, in 2001, the FTC brought a lawsuit against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products alleging such payments regarding Schering’s potassium chloride product, K-Dur 20. Despite settling with AHP, the FTC found little success in the case, with an FTC Administrative Law Judge finding the agreement had been lawful. This led to the FTC overturning the decision, despite it having been made by an FTC judge. However, in 2005, a federal appellate court again found in favour of the companies, and the decision has so far stuck. This, along with another similar decision in 2005 has led to a raft of payment agreements in the years since, which the FTC still contends harms competition by prolonging monopolies.
Given its entrenched view on the matter, it is no surprise that the FTC has again made a complaint. However, the current argument concerning AndroGel does not appear to shed any new light on the issue, and as a result, it seems unlikely that the FTC will succeed this time, either. On the face of it, the FTC’s case is quite sound – Watson gained FDA approval for a generic version of AndroGel in 2006 following the end of the Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay of approval, and Par after that, but did not launch, instead coming to an agreement with Solvay to postpone. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. The patent at the heart of the dispute expires in 2020, with paediatric exclusivity until 2021. Yet, the agreements see generic versions being launched from 2015; the FTC rightfully points out that this is nine years after Watson gained approval, but the firms also rightfully point out that it is five years before the patent expires. The key problem is that although ANDAs were filed with Paragraph IV certifications against the patent, the issue was settled out of court and so the validity of the patent was never tested. As a result, the patent remains in force, which backs up the companies’ argument that the settlement has enabled generic competition ahead of schedule and is therefore pro-competitive. It is hard to see how the FTC can manoeuvre around this problem, and whilst it argues, and probably correctly, that the generic firms entered the agreement not out of respect for Solvay’s patent, but because of the payments Solvay offered, with the patent untested in court, the facts as they stand do not back this up. Unless the FTC can produce compelling evidence, its suspicions will remain nothing more than a hunch.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
The FTC’s position has for a long time been that agreements in which a branded company essentially pays a generic competitor not to launch a competing product hampers competition and is thus illegal. As an example, in 2001, the FTC brought a lawsuit against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products alleging such payments regarding Schering’s potassium chloride product, K-Dur 20. Despite settling with AHP, the FTC found little success in the case, with an FTC Administrative Law Judge finding the agreement had been lawful. This led to the FTC overturning the decision, despite it having been made by an FTC judge. However, in 2005, a federal appellate court again found in favour of the companies, and the decision has so far stuck. This, along with another similar decision in 2005 has led to a raft of payment agreements in the years since, which the FTC still contends harms competition by prolonging monopolies.
Given its entrenched view on the matter, it is no surprise that the FTC has again made a complaint. However, the current argument concerning AndroGel does not appear to shed any new light on the issue, and as a result, it seems unlikely that the FTC will succeed this time, either. On the face of it, the FTC’s case is quite sound – Watson gained FDA approval for a generic version of AndroGel in 2006 following the end of the Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay of approval, and Par after that, but did not launch, instead coming to an agreement with Solvay to postpone. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. The patent at the heart of the dispute expires in 2020, with paediatric exclusivity until 2021. Yet, the agreements see generic versions being launched from 2015; the FTC rightfully points out that this is nine years after Watson gained approval, but the firms also rightfully point out that it is five years before the patent expires. The key problem is that although ANDAs were filed with Paragraph IV certifications against the patent, the issue was settled out of court and so the validity of the patent was never tested. As a result, the patent remains in force, which backs up the companies’ argument that the settlement has enabled generic competition ahead of schedule and is therefore pro-competitive. It is hard to see how the FTC can manoeuvre around this problem, and whilst it argues, and probably correctly, that the generic firms entered the agreement not out of respect for Solvay’s patent, but because of the payments Solvay offered, with the patent untested in court, the facts as they stand do not back this up. Unless the FTC can produce compelling evidence, its suspicions will remain nothing more than a hunch.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Friday, January 30, 2009
Warner Chilcott end Femcon and Loestrin generic challenges
Warner Chilcott has been able to resovle a number of litigation cases against its proprietary oral contraceptives, Femcon Fe and Loestrin 24 Fe. Femcon was a chewable version of Ovcon 35, an oral contraceptive that has been on the market since before 1982. The chewable version was approved by the FDA in November 2003, and was the first chewable oral contraceptive, manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb and marketed by Warner Chilcott. The chewable version of Ovcon 35 was granted three years exclusivity in late 2003, to expire in November 2006, and a patent was granted for the drug which does not expire until 6th April 2019. In the case of Lostrin 24, Galen originally acquired the Loestrin brand from Pfizer, and in early 2006 was granted approval for Loestrin 24 Fe; that product is protected by a patent listed in the FDA’s Orange Book which is set to expire in July 2014.
Despite the long lead times left on the two patents protecting the two oral contraceptives, Warner Chilcott has faced generic challengers for both. Barr Laboratories filed an ANDA for a generic version of Femcon Fe in April 2007, leading to a patent challenge initiated that summer. Watson Pharmaceuticals also filed an ANDA for a generic version in 2007, leading to a lawsuit filed against it in October 2007. In the case of Loestrin 24 Fe, Warner Chilcott filed a lawsuit in the US District Court of New Jersey alleging patent infringement almost as son as the drug had entered the market, with a case against Berlex and Schering AG. Warner Chilcott alleged the firms were infringing Loestrin’s patent by marketing their YAZ oral contraceptive. A few months later, in June 2006, Warner Chilcott received an ANDA notice from Watson Laboratories notifying of an application to market a generic version of the oral contraceptive, leading to another lawsuit in the New Jersey court alleging patent infringement. The YAZ litigation was settled early, in November 2006, with Schering making payments to Warner Chilcott.
Now, in a series of agreements over December 2008 and January 2009, Warner Chilcott has settled the litigation with Barr and Watson (see p. 8). The settlement with Barr concerns Femcon Fe, and gives Barr the option to launch its generic version in 2012, seven years ahead of the 2019 patent expiration. Warner Chilcott also entered into a patent settlement agreement with Watson regarding Femcon Fe. Under the terms of this, Watson will have to wait until 180 days after Barr launches its version, or January 2013, whichever comes earlier. With regard to Loestrin 24 Fe, an agreement has been made with Watson whereby Watson will be able to commence marketing its version in January 2014, or earlier if another generic enters the market. It is interesting to note that once again, a settlement has been made which effectively allows a generic firm to launch its version as an authorised generic in order to sabotage sales from a third party.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Despite the long lead times left on the two patents protecting the two oral contraceptives, Warner Chilcott has faced generic challengers for both. Barr Laboratories filed an ANDA for a generic version of Femcon Fe in April 2007, leading to a patent challenge initiated that summer. Watson Pharmaceuticals also filed an ANDA for a generic version in 2007, leading to a lawsuit filed against it in October 2007. In the case of Loestrin 24 Fe, Warner Chilcott filed a lawsuit in the US District Court of New Jersey alleging patent infringement almost as son as the drug had entered the market, with a case against Berlex and Schering AG. Warner Chilcott alleged the firms were infringing Loestrin’s patent by marketing their YAZ oral contraceptive. A few months later, in June 2006, Warner Chilcott received an ANDA notice from Watson Laboratories notifying of an application to market a generic version of the oral contraceptive, leading to another lawsuit in the New Jersey court alleging patent infringement. The YAZ litigation was settled early, in November 2006, with Schering making payments to Warner Chilcott.
Now, in a series of agreements over December 2008 and January 2009, Warner Chilcott has settled the litigation with Barr and Watson (see p. 8). The settlement with Barr concerns Femcon Fe, and gives Barr the option to launch its generic version in 2012, seven years ahead of the 2019 patent expiration. Warner Chilcott also entered into a patent settlement agreement with Watson regarding Femcon Fe. Under the terms of this, Watson will have to wait until 180 days after Barr launches its version, or January 2013, whichever comes earlier. With regard to Loestrin 24 Fe, an agreement has been made with Watson whereby Watson will be able to commence marketing its version in January 2014, or earlier if another generic enters the market. It is interesting to note that once again, a settlement has been made which effectively allows a generic firm to launch its version as an authorised generic in order to sabotage sales from a third party.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Friday, January 2, 2009
UK government announces new pricing plans
The UK government has announced a new deal with the pharmaceutical industry which will bring in a flexible pricing scheme. Although the announcement relates to the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS), which in turn deals with the branded industry rather than generics, the news is of interest because the agreement further enshrines the place of generics in the NHS' spending plans. Of particular interest is the agreement covering pricing. In the original deal between government and industry announced in June 2008, a saving of 5% in the cost of drugs sold to the NHS was included, which was to be made up of a base price cut for all branded drugs of 2%, combined with measures to reduce the price of out of patent drugs where a generic exists and a further variable price cut. This has now been changed to include a 3.9% price cut and a plan for the Department of Health to introduce generic substitution, whereby pharmacists will be able to dispense a generic against a prescription for a branded drug unless the physician has specified the branded drug to be used. However, the measure will not be introduced before January 2010, a year after the rest of the agreement comes into force, because of the discussions and system changes that would be required. Further price adjustments will then come in each year with the aim of reaching the original 5% cut envisaged. However, the precise effect of generic substitution is unknown, and expected savings have been based on models, and so it is expected that a cut of exactly 5% is unlikely to be achieved; further discussions will therefore be undertaken to keep the scheme on track.
The agreement has been reached with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), and on the face of it represents something of a change of heart for the organisation. Generic substitution - prescribing a generic without the specific consent of a doctor - has been illegal in the UK, and if a doctor has prescribed by a brand name, then the brand version must be dispensed. Not surprisingly, this is a stance that has been defended by the ABPI, which has previously argued that generic substitution would undermine doctors‟ relationships with their patients and could compromise patient health by disrupting the choice of medication selected by the doctor. Whilst the validity of such claims are clearly part of a much wider debate between generics and branded drugs, the stance will nonetheless have been very handy for the ABPI, given that prescribing of generics in Britain has been far higher than in other EU countries, and amongst the highest in the world, and is a trend that has continued to rise. As a result, the ABPI agreeing to at least discuss generic substitution would seem to be a significant change. However, on the other side of the coin, because over 80% of prescriptions are already written generically, it is questionable how much the branded industry would really stand to lose, as the rate suggests doctors already write generic prescriptions unless they specifically want a branded drug used.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
The agreement has been reached with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), and on the face of it represents something of a change of heart for the organisation. Generic substitution - prescribing a generic without the specific consent of a doctor - has been illegal in the UK, and if a doctor has prescribed by a brand name, then the brand version must be dispensed. Not surprisingly, this is a stance that has been defended by the ABPI, which has previously argued that generic substitution would undermine doctors‟ relationships with their patients and could compromise patient health by disrupting the choice of medication selected by the doctor. Whilst the validity of such claims are clearly part of a much wider debate between generics and branded drugs, the stance will nonetheless have been very handy for the ABPI, given that prescribing of generics in Britain has been far higher than in other EU countries, and amongst the highest in the world, and is a trend that has continued to rise. As a result, the ABPI agreeing to at least discuss generic substitution would seem to be a significant change. However, on the other side of the coin, because over 80% of prescriptions are already written generically, it is questionable how much the branded industry would really stand to lose, as the rate suggests doctors already write generic prescriptions unless they specifically want a branded drug used.
Ian Platts - Editor, World Generic Markets
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)