Patients' Perceptions Of Generic Medications

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 03/2009; 28(2):546-56. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.546
Source: PubMed


Insurers and policymakers encourage the use of generic drugs to reduce costs, but generics remain underused. We conducted a national survey of commercially insured adults to evaluate their perceptions about generic drugs. Patients agreed that generics are less expensive and a better value than brand-name drugs, and are just as safe. However, although 56 percent reported that Americans should use more generics, only 37.6 percent prefer to take generics. We discuss perceptions about communicating with practitioners about generics, generic substitution, and policymakers' role in influencing generic use. These findings underscore the challenge that providers, insurers, and policymakers face in stimulating the cost-effective use of medications.

10 Reads
  • Source
    • "In the USA alone, $ 9 billion (11% of total prescription costs) were saved during the period from 1997 to 2000 through the use of generic drugs (Fischer et al, 2003 & Haas et al, 2005). In 2009, 66% of prescriptions in the USA were for generic drugs that contributed to only 13% of total prescription expenditure (Shrank et al, 2009). With over $100 billion worth of innovator drugs losing their patent protection between 2010 and 2014, it is essential for countries to develop their generic drug manufacturing capabilities to take advantage of this new market (, "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study aimed to explore the knowledge, perception, and attitude of physicians towards generic medicines in Saudi Arabia.
    Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal 01/2015; 29. DOI:10.1016/j.jsps.2015.01.014 · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Because of its lower costs, use of generic drugs is supported by health care systems by recommending physicians to prefer them whenever available over brand-name drugs [1] [2] [3] [4]. However, whether generic drugs are as therapeutically effective as their brand-name counterparts is still a matter of debate [5] [6] [7]. European regulations accept generics with a bioavailability that can be considerably different from the brand-name reference drugs [8] [9]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Use of generic drugs can help contain drug spending. However, there is concern among patients and physicians that generic drugs may be clinically inferior to brand-name ones. This study aimed to compare patients treated with generic and brand-name statins in terms of therapeutic interruption and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Methods 13,799 beneficiaries of the health care system of Lombardy, Italy, aged 40 years or older who were newly treated with generic or brand-name simvastatin during 2008, were followed until 2011 for the occurrence of two outcomes: 1) therapeutic discontinuation and 2) hospitalization for CV events. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with use of generic or brand-name at starting therapy (intention-to-treat analysis) and during follow-up (as-treated analysis) were estimated by fitting proportional hazard Cox models. A Monte-Carlo sensitivity analysis was performed to account for unmeasured confounders. Results Patients who started on generic did not experience a different risk of discontinuation (HR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02) nor of CV outcomes (HR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22) from those starting on brand-name. Patients who spent > 75% of time of follow-up with statin available on generics did not experience a different risk of discontinuation (HR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01), nor of CV outcomes (HR: 1.06; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34), compared with those who mainly or only used brand-name statin. Conclusions Our findings do not support the notion that in the real world clinical practice brand-name statins are superior to generics for keeping therapy and preventing CV outcomes.
    European Journal of Internal Medicine 10/2014; 25(8). DOI:10.1016/j.ejim.2014.08.002 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Our model-based extrapolation of changes in prices and welfare in a world of perfect consumer information builds on recent work that uses an equilibrium 4 This is a limitation of any revealed-preference evidence on the effect of information, but it is especially salient here as drugs are known to have brand-related placebo effects (Branthwaite and Cooper 1981; Kamenica et al. 2013). 5 A sizable literature examines the demographic and attitudinal correlates of purchasing store-brand consumer packaged goods (e.g., Dick et al. 1995; Richardson et al. 1996; Burton et al. 1998; Sethuraman and Cole 1999; Kumar and Steenkamp 2007; Bergès et al. 2009; Steenkamp et al. 2010) and generic prescription drugs (e.g., Shrank et al. 2009). A literature on blind taste tests finds that consumers cannot distinguish among national brands (Husband and Godfrey 1934; Allison and Uhl 1964) or between national-brand and store-brand goods (Pronko and Bowles 1949), though there are exceptions (Mason and Batch 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We estimate the effect of information and expertise on consumers’ willingness to pay for national brands in physically homogeneous product categories. In a detailed case study of headache remedies we find that more informed or expert consumers are less likely to pay extra to buy national brands, with pharmacists choosing them over store brands only 9 percent of the time, compared to 26 percent of the time for the average consumer. In a similar case study of pantry staples such as salt and sugar, we show that chefs devote 12 percentage points less of their purchases to national brands than demographically similar non-chefs. We extend our analysis to cover 50 retail health categories and 241 food and drink categories. The results suggest that misinformation and related consumer mistakes explain a sizable share of the brand premium for health products, and a much smaller share for most food and drink products. We tie our estimates together using a stylized model of demand and pricing.
    Quarterly Journal of Economics 07/2014; DOI:10.1093/qje/qjv024 · 5.92 Impact Factor
Show more


10 Reads
Available from