Like much else in health care in Britain, attempts to prescribe drugs by generic rather than brand names can be frustrating. This crucial contribution to containing the national drugs bill is sometimes disrupted by the tactics of the drug industry. And it must be rare to find patients who actively welcome being switched from a product with a familiar name and look.
Despite these negative aspects, the prescribing of generic drugs is a success story in the UK and should be cause for celebration. That it isn't celebrated (at least, not by patients) owes much to the downbeat way the topic is presented and discussed. Part of the problem here is the low key nature of generic drugs and their producers. Few prescribers would struggle to name several major drug companies, yet how many could identify even a single producer of generics, let alone suggest how such outfits operate or relate to noisier, more powerful branches of the industry? This is a little odd, given how essential generic drugs are to the health service.
Another issue is the language surrounding generics. In particular, unqualified use of “cheaper” and “cheap copies” in discussion of these products does not help. Such terms are too easily misinterpreted as “substandard.” Generics are not merely cheaper “copies” but equivalents that (with well documented exceptions) offer the same effectiveness, safety, and quality as their brand name versions and are, therefore, better value for money. Emphasising cheapness is a distraction.
So perhaps it's time to learn from organisations that really know about championing value for money goods. Supermarkets are masters of this game. You won't catch them presenting their “budget” or “value” products in ways that suggest “second rate” or “unfit for purpose.” Instead, their promotions carefully avoid making buyers feel mean, stupid, or inadequate for purchases that are made to minimise cost or maximise spending power. And somehow the shops achieve this while also marketing pricier items of undeniably higher class (a complication largely absent in comparisons of generic and brand name drugs).
Of course, a key difference between supermarket shopping and being prescribed generic drugs is the consumer's lack of direct involvement in the NHS's purchasing decisions. For patients and some prescribers this can mean that messages of value for money come a poor second to the higher profile trumpeting of brand name products. So hearts and minds still need to be won on how generic drugs benefit the nation without disadvantaging individuals.
In areas of expenditure where the public has much less day to day involvement than with drugs, such as defence or local government, the need for cost effective use of central funds goes without saying. Doesn't generic prescribing deserve the same benign acceptance?