A recent article, “Generics: Just as Good?,” in the March 17, 2008 issue of the Los Angeles Times observed the potential safety and efficacy differences between brand drugs and their generic alternatives. As generic drugs become more prevalent, it will be interesting to see how America’s perception of generics grows. The article raises some excellent points, but two things are worth seriously considering.
- First, there will always be difference in how individuals respond to the same drug vs. a generic alternative, just as there are differences in how different individuals respond to the same brand drug. There is no “one size fits all” solution. As the industry evolves and generics become more widespread, individual cases of people responding differently to generic alternatives are bound to happen. Being aware of these issues is an important part of the process of a drug being available to the public and should not be used to limit access to generics.
- Second, America has traditionally been a culture that likes its brands. We are happy to pay more, sometimes a lot more, for brands we like, regardless of their quality or efficacy. Issues of the differences between generic and brand drugs should be put to patients, but done so in the context of price transparency. Let patients place the value of their brand in the greater scheme, but give them more transparency on price so they can better understand the cost of what and where they believe value is located.
Transparency means more than simply comparing drug pricing; the concept is multifaceted, and is both industry and consumer-driven. Much in the same way one would go about purchasing a car, an appliance, or a computer, consumers must educate themselves on the options available to them, discuss these options with professionals (in this case, their doctors), compare pricing and retailers (“shop around”), and make an informed decision about what is best for them.
