[Stitcher]

Americans Who Are Not Taking Advantage Of Lower- Cost Generic Prescriptions Are Wasting Their Hard-earned Money - AARP

According to a new report released by AARP, manufacturer prices of 185 widely used generic drugs in Medicare Part D decreased by an average of 9.6 percent in 2007. A report from AARP earlier this year showed that manufacturer prices of 220 of the most commonly used brand-name drugs by Part D enrollees increased by more than seven percent during the same period.

"Americans who are not taking advantage of lower-cost generic prescriptions are wasting their hard-earned money," said John Rother, AARP Director of Public Policy. "As the economy continues to tighten, people need to look for cost-savings at every opportunity. Ask your physician if a lower-cost generic drug might be an appropriate treatment option. The brand-name pharmaceutical industry creates many valuable drugs, but often more expensive, brand-name drugs are not necessarily any more effective than their generic "cousins" that you won't see advertised on TV."

Of the 185 generic drugs AARP studied in 2007, there were no price changes for 133 generic drugs. Forty-three generics drugs had price reductions up to 69.5 percent, and only nine generic drugs had price increases. The generic drugs with the largest decrease in price are metformin (-9.5%) which treats diabetes, lisinopril (-54.2%) which treats high blood pressure and mirtazapine (-49.8%) which treats depression.

READ more...

[lurkingforacure]

I have to pipe up-we are not yet members of AARP (though not too far off, as they say), so I can't write in to AARP personally. Perhaps AARP needs to inquire as to why so many members choose not to buy generic. After trying several generics, which had no benefit and only side effects, we have realized, after researching the issue, that generics are really not generic at all. Our understanding of generics is that the only thing they have in common with the name brand is the active ingredient-the fillers can be completely different, thus resulting in enormous differences in absorption rates both in terms of quantity and times of absorption, so the effectiveness of the drug can vary tremendously from name brand. The generic sinemet, for example, was useless to us. We might as well as have eaten a tic tac. I guess I feel like many here, that most of the drugs are of questionable value in the first place, and then making them generic only waters down an already weak claim to therapeutic benefit. Sorry to be so poo-poo on the meds, just telling it like we see it.

[ol'cs]

some generics are equal in every way to branded products (and can even surpass them in effectiveness; and the other way around. As a chemist one says "no way", but as a pharmacologist one says "yes way".
It is easy to make a bad batch of drugs that undergo sloppy testing and make it through to the pharmacy, and the pharmacological issues of ADME (Absorption, Distribution; Metabolism and Excretion) often prove the chemist wrong.
Especially with todays many "chiral" (mirror image, isomeric) compounds. A low yield of one particular isomer (snuck past quality control for monetary reasons) can make a huge difference in biological activity.
Not getting out all the often toxic reagents in ppm concentrations from a certain batch (once again 'mo money) can be downright dangerous.
And this one for us. drugs that are unstable in air and/or light (air oxidation of dopa) can have a greatly lowered "proper shelf life. These come from formulating, where just a quick inert coating can prevent degradation of the compound. I have done experiments where i check the color of the product upon air and light exposure. Sinemet; poorly protected from moist air, tends to turn brown after a number of months, even in the cold.
In this case i have shown that the brand outperformed the generics, MOST of the time, as far as this one aspect is concerned and if it means anything at all?