Generics Saved Consumers How Much Money?

As the debate over health care costs escalates beyond a fever pitch, generic drugmakers are taking advantage of the moment to tout the sort of savings their copycat versions can offer. In a new report, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association boasts that the US saved $193 billion last year and more than $1 trillion over the past decade by using generic medications instead of brand-name drugs.

Here are some other nuggets: Savings from generics last year rose 22 percent, marking the largest year-over-year increase since 1998, and a savings of 10 percent higher than the 10-year average. Savings from newer generics - those that entered the market since 2002 — totaled $481 billion over the past decade. Last year, nearly 80 percent of 4 billion prescriptions written in the US were for generics, but accounted for only 27 percent of total drug spending.

In discussing the report, which was compiled by IMS Health, the trade group dismissed arguments that generic usage has increased so dramatically that incentives to develop new drugs has been harmed. An article in Health Affairs called on Congress to review the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act to gauge whether the law is balancing incentives for generics and innovation or needs to be amended so that generic competition is not delayed by monopolistic practices (read here). The trade group argues more new molecular entities were approved last year than at any time in the past decade when including orphan drugs.

By the same token, the trade group used the report to argue against any restrictions on so-called pay-to-delay settlements in which brand-name drugmakers and their generic rivals reach settlements on patent litigation that forestall entry of copycat meds into the marketplace. Generic drugmakers argue the deals are legal and do not delay generic versions but, rather, actually accelerate the pace at which copycats become available because lengthy litigation is ended. However, a recent federal appeals court ruling found the deals are questionable and some legal experts believe the issue may be reviewed by the US Supreme Court (see this).

Back to the report. The trade group noted that the increase in generics usage was spurred by patents that expired for big-selling brand-name drugs, including the Zyprexa antipsychotic, the Lipitor cholesterol pill and the Concerta ADHD medication. Meanwhile, generic versions of central nervous system drugs, such as antidepressants and anticonvulsants, and cardiovascular drugs accounted for 57 percent of the annual savings.

The greatest one-year savings growth rate came in the cancer treatment category. Savings from generic oncology products topped $10 billion in 2011, more than three times higher than the $3 billion that generic cancer drugs saved in 2010. Larger savings primarily were driven by the introduction of generic versions of two aromatase inhibitors, Taxotere and Gemzar for which the brand patents expired (here is the complete report).

Looking ahead, between 2012 and 2015, brand-name drugs with $67 billion in annual sales will lose patent protection. Patents also will expire for brand-name biologics with more than $25 billion in annual sales. As a result, IMS forecasts that generic utilization will reach nearly 87 percent by 2015, assuming that the FDA can establish a biosimilar pathway.

18 Comments

Aug 2, 2012 - 1:29pm
It's easy to forget that there would be no generic meds without their predecessor branded agents. And that the USA enjoys comparatively lower prices for generics than other developed countries. The availability of low priced generics has allowed the overall costs of medications relative to total health care costs in the US to remain relatively stable over the past two decades.
Aug 2, 2012 - 3:03pm
Actually it's not easy to forget when many people pay through the nose for a brand for 12-14 years and then get some relief when the generic arrives. The U.S. overpays for brands compared to the rest of the world. I don't begrudge pharma the money they make on brands but when it's over for a product it's over.
Aug 3, 2012 - 7:29am
typical
Aug 3, 2012 - 8:32am
C-Suite please start ranting and raving about pharmacists and antibiotics again. My week wouldn't be complete without it.
Aug 3, 2012 - 9:19am
The reason for the price disparity in the United states among other reasons is that we don't have price controls on pharmaceuticals. In other developed nations these controls tend to smooth out differences between branded and generics so they are not as noticible.

MC you definitely have someone who agrees with you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMc263klrMQ

Aug 3, 2012 - 9:46am
before I moved up to the 9th floor, I was down in the basement with the other pharmacists. Before I came to the academic medical center, I worked in retail. If always made me feel dirty when the owner, a pharmacists would tell patients that he was looking out for them by now offering them a generic to save them money. He would carry on about his disgust of pharma industry greed and that in looking out for his patients as one of American's most trusted types, he was primarily interested in them.

The number behind the scene looked like this:

Brand product cost pharmacy $75 and we sold it for $80. When it went generic, we could buy an AB rated version for $25 and we sold it for $60. My boss would sell that $20 savings all day long, both in the store, at little league and at church. Pharma greed was bad he would say and he was looking out for the little man.

If it make you feel better MC, these were not antibiotics.

Aug 3, 2012 - 9:55am
C-Suite, what you failed to mention is that you guys always go for the cheapest generics, which frightens the hell out of any patient taking a Narrow Therapeutic Index drug, like LT4. The cost saving by the customer is negated by the trip to the doctor, the blood work, etc to get patient retitrated correctly.

So much for "America's Most Trusted Types". That one went over on me like a fart in a specesuit.

Aug 3, 2012 - 10:49am
surely you can read my note and know it disgusts me as well or perhaps you are thicker than presented. I know too well what pharmacists have done over the years, good and bad. I am fighting like hell right now to have products that decrease length of stay incorporated into our algorithms. We are getting ready to get paid on value, not volume and minimizing acquisition costs but fighting my own kind is the biggest fight.
Aug 3, 2012 - 11:19am
C-Suite: (and I have to laugh thinking that OII and C-Suite are having a conversation in one rather sick individual's head) - So what you are saying is that in any retail environment the profit margins on every item need to be identical and the savings equally distributed between the seller and buyer? Seems to contradict your free market mentality with branded drugs.

For 99.9% of drugs taking the generic doesn't matter. For a small group of NTI drugs most pharmacists, including myself, recommend staying with the brand. Looking forward to your detailed analysis of drug value.

Aug 3, 2012 - 12:39pm
As Roger Waters sang "there's someone in my head but it's not me".
Aug 3, 2012 - 1:05pm
My analysis is as follows. Doctors have the power to overide the pharmacists and PBMs. If my doctor buddies would always remember to write "Dispense as Written" or "Brand name only" then MC would have nobody to call him.
Aug 3, 2012 - 1:19pm
well said oii. MC-are you suggesting that I direct my lost lash wishes elsewhere?
Aug 3, 2012 - 1:30pm
What I'm saying is that trying to control medical costs is the ultimate game of whack-a-mole. The patient who saves five bucks on a generic drug pops up in a five thousand dollar MRI tube the next week for some questionably useful scan. Lets give up the illusion of trying to control costs. Or as a famous doctor said "Big surgeons make big bucks from big incisions".

Semper fi, bro.

Aug 3, 2012 - 2:41pm
Sure OII, the doc can write dispsense as written, the brand will be dispensed, and the patient will pay more. For a NTI drug, everyone is happy. If it's one of the other 99.9% of drugs and the patient balks at the price I'd tell them to find a new doctor. If you think that for non-NTI drugs the "problems" of generics outweigh the savings than you are even crazier than someone posting back and forth here under differnt names.
Aug 3, 2012 - 3:05pm
Sorry, MC one head isn't big enough to contain the combined neocortices (gray matter for dummies) of two geniuses such as C-Suite and myself.

You didn't comment on my truism that trying to contain medical costs is like trying to play whack-a-mole. You might be more fun if you mixed in a bit of Gordon Gekko with Nurse Ratched every once and awhile, pal.

Aug 3, 2012 - 3:10pm
Controlling some medical costs is difficult. Generics are very low-hanging fruit.
Aug 3, 2012 - 3:48pm
Thanks, MC. I also have some low hanging fruit, but I don't think anybody would be interested in mine.
Aug 4, 2012 - 10:06pm
The world seems well aware that the US pays more than everyone else for branded drugs. What they don't realize is that the US pays much less for generic drugs, and that ~80% of all Rxs in the US are for generic drugs. This means our overall drugs costs are not that different from other countries - they are just spread out differently. In the US, those who want/need the latest drugs pay more, which helps fund the development of future new drugs.