The Generic Vs Brand War

The current debate over the Mylan Company’s near monopoly of the epinephrine market through its EpiPen shows what can happen without monopoly regulation. While the cost to produce an Epipen is around $30, the price to the consumer is around $300 each. The economic implications for a family that needs to keep the device on hand to save a life can be excessively high, the emotional results of not having one when you need one are debilitating. This monopoly is further enhanced by state-enforced regulations requiring that schools keep EpiPens in stock and the, so-called, EpiPen law enacted in 2013, which leave little incentive for other pharmaceutical companies to develop their own technology for fast-acting emergency devices. (Bartolone, 2016) Breaking Mylan’s monopoly will not only lead to new product development but lower prices for consumers for a life-saving delivery

In the pharmaceutical world, payers have switched to the generic brand over the brand-name drugs (The Commonwealth Fund, 2016). Although efforts to slow down the costs of healthcare might have work a little bit. A recent report shows spending has grew 5.7 percent in the past year (Altarum Institute, 2015).

Prescription drug prices are on the rise in the United States. Currently, the United States does not implement a price control on prescription drugs. Every day the supply and demand for prescription drugs fluctuates. Pharmaceutical companies produce drugs that are necessary for survival. Therefore, it is necessary for research and development to continue in the United States. Those suffering the effects of exorbitant prices must do so until a generic form of a prescription drug is produced. Once approved by the FDA, new drugs will make their appearance on the market and patients will no longer suffer financially. Until then, it is necessary for pharmaceutical companies to price their drugs based on the idea of supply and demand. This produces the profit used to fund research. Price controls discourage innovation. If a price control were set in place, of course the price of prescription drugs would decrease. However, the development of new drugs decreases with it. Today’s generation would benefit from lower prices, while future generations would suffer from the loss of drug innovation.

If congress would focus on making generic drugs available the cost of prescriptions would not be as high, and Americans could save approximately $35 billion during the next decade. Compared to $72 a month for brand name drugs, generic versions average $17 a month or 25 to 89 percent lower. Under current legislation original manufacturers of a drug may file multiple lawsuits to prevent other companies from producing a generic version of their drug after the patent runs out. Each lawsuit that is filed delays the production of the generic version by 30 months. If the new bill is passed only one lawsuit will be allowed which would speed the production of generic drugs. The proposed law would also decrease the time it

Recently, there had been a controversy over the rise in pharmaceutical costs involving the EpiPen in the United States. The EpiPen, also known as adrenaline/epinephrine, is a widely used injection that is used to treat allergic reactions. This generic drug has been available for many years. The EpiPen controversy is a prime example of how monopoly

The rise in costs of prescription medicines affects all sectors of the health care industry, including private insurers, public programs, and patients. Spending on prescription drugs continues to be an important health care concern, particularly in light of rising pharmaceutical costs, the aging population, and increased use of costly specialty drugs. In recent history, increases in prescription drug costs have outpaced other categories of health care spending, rising rapidly throughout the latter half of the 1990s and early 2000s. (Kaiseredu.org, 2012).

Prescription drug coverage is a challenge in the United States today. As this issue is addressed on the State and National level, challenges continue to be addressed. The topic of anti-epileptic drug treatment is one topic which has been presented to many states. The concern being brand name drugs versus generic drugs, the bioequivalence of anti-epileptic drugs and the cost. The passing of Generic drugs is beneficial to patients for savings, insurance benefits and coverage and the purpose of making drugs affordable for patients. The “Bioequivalence of most generics do not significantly deviate from brand name drugs, however multiple generic switches of individual drugs may vary as much as 30%.

Thank you for your thoughts Danh. I am aware that Hy-Vee and Wal-Mart pharmacies offer a $4 generic list, but as a Hy-Vee pharmacy intern, I know that the list is limited. The patient does not benefit from such a promotion if their drug is not on the list. Hence, this common scenario is in conflict with the ethical principle of distributive justice. Additionally, I believe that pharmacists can only do so much in a given situation and the system for access to medications is disappointingly inadequate. Thus, I proposed the development of a centralized electronic system dedicated to maximizing access to medications for every patient.

Recently, there has been a debate about the high prescription drug prices in the United States. Accounting for 9.7% of the national health expenditure, $329.2 billion was spent on prescription medications ($931 per person) in 2011 (Linton, 2014). So what exactly is the average American getting with their $931? Well, because there is an extraordinary amount of time, effort, and energy that goes into creating, manufacturing, and distributing a new drug, it’s no wonder the prices are so high. But what other costs are folded into the prices of your prescribed medications? This review looks beyond just the research and development costs needed to take a new drug from idea to shelf by examining several journals and other credible, secondary sources, to shed some light on how much pharmaceutical companies are spending to develop, advertise, and sell their drugs.

Tylenol, an over the counter prescription product from Johnson & Johnson, was one of the top brands in the analgesic market. Within the company, it was also a large income earner that commanded nearly 15% of the company’s total profits. That being the case, the 1982 crisis was not only a big blow to the brand, but also to the company as a whole. The crisis jeopardized the company’s existence; putting at risk a multi million investment which the investors had a lot of faith in. Irrespective of whether the crisis was due to malicious acts from ill motivated criminals or not, the company had to act swiftly to counter the legal issues which were ensuing and mitigate huge impending losses. It was really a trying moment for the top management of Johnson & Johnson and more so to the CEO, James Burke, who faced the toughest test of his managerial career during this time. Though the crisis was amicably solved, there were some legal issues that were imminent and some valuable lessons learnt from the episode.

Consumers do not always evaluate prices objectively. Often a referenced price is a known and available price, like that of a competitor. Pricing Datril at par with Tylenol and advertising it as a new substitute with same features may have been a fraught tactic in a short-run test environment. Market penetration and share take time and is unknown. Additionally, a price war could have ensued with Tylenol due to cost differences especially in advertising.

Because pharmaceutical companies have so much power over pricing, they have started to raise prices with no motive other than more profit. In recent years, the industry has seen a steep price increase in drugs. These increases, in some cases, seem inexplicable. Regarding this is the recent example of the EpiPen, a common emergency drug used for patients with severe allergies. In the past, the EpiPen was available to patients for as low as 40 dollars. Now the price is “almost 600 dollars.” (Woodward, Layton) The problem with this is the device has had no fundamentally different changes to it. This means the pharmaceutical company responsible for the EpiPen raised the price for no reason other than more money in the company’s pocket. A

According to an online article, a 2000 study published in the Journal of Health Economics estimated that bringing a new drug to market costs the innovator on average eight hundred and two million dollars over a period of ten to fifteen years. In 2008, the average price of a brand-name drug was $137.90, while the average generic prescription was $35.22 (Health Smart website, 6). The copayment also costs less for the generic medication than the brand-name because the generic did not have to have years of extended research. Today, almost half of the prescriptions are generic (Health Smart website, 7). Price and differences in these medications have an impact on how society looks at the medications they need or

When patients have already faced the situation that they could not afford their prescription brand, they would turn to other measures. One of those measures would be to use a different brand to substitute the same drug to treat their condition. However, this drug may not be as effective as their previous one. For example, Epipens are a very popular drug to treat individuals with severe allergies. If they experience an allergic reaction, they would rely on an Epipen injection to offset it. While it is a very popular and widely used allergy treating prescription, its substantial price increase over the years have made it quite an expensive one. With being quite costly, patients may turn to finding an inexpensive brand, anticipating that it would have an equivalent effect as their previous prescription. However, according to Rubenfire from Modern Health Care, “[f]or most drugs or devices, patients might look to a competitor for a cheaper price. But Dr. Bobby Lanier, a Fort Worth, Texas-based allergist, said most of his patients end up using the name brand EpiPen rather than competitors such as Adrenaclick” (Rubenfire). Thus, this points out that alternative brands claiming to have equal effects as the name brand may not be as efficient to treating the patient’s condition. With its cheaper price and yet ineffectiveness, it may lead patients to worsen their overall health due to the circumstances given by the new drug. In other words, their health is at risk since they would have

It has been estimated that most of the major pharmaceutical companies have engaged in some unusual practices to keep generic equivalents of their products from entering the marketplace. These measures usually have a negative effect on consumers and health care plan providers, prohibiting them from buying equally effective products at a discounted rate. The objective of the major pharmaceutical companies in attempting to prevent generics from entering the market is clearly to provide their shareholders with exceptional profits. Some would argue that there is a morality argument to be made against “big pharma” in these cases of market manipulation. We will explore the moral