Do pharmacists get kickbacks for switching patients to generic drugs?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Who can sleep when such an important question goes unanswered? My extensive research leads me to believe that this is addressed by the bioequivalence studies. Specific ratios of racemic mixtures is not something that appears to be looked at by the FDA, but if there is a significant difference between drug products it would show on the bioequivalence studies, or so I am going to claim.

I should have paid more attention in dosage forms, I am sure we covered this!

Source:
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm134444.htm
 
Who can sleep when such an important question goes unanswered? My extensive research leads me to believe that this is addressed by the bioequivalence studies. Specific ratios of racemic mixtures is not something that appears to be looked at by the FDA, but if there is a significant difference between drug products it would show on the bioequivalence studies, or so I am going to claim.

I should have paid more attention in dosage forms, I am sure we covered this!

Source:
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm134444.htm

Thank you, Dr. Owle. For your next task, I shall assign you a Journal Club presentation, article of my own choosing. :meanie:
 
Sorry but a clinical pharmacist is not a clinician who makes any diagnosis or treatment plan. They simply implement the doctors plan. Managing INR is not being a clinician I am sorry. That is a pharmcist task of proper dosing etc. You do not start someone on coumadin, you follow the order.

Yeah, ok, Your Highness. Pardon me. It is irrelevant in this discussion either way...

To spell it out for you, generics need to meet certain criteria, none of which include similar efficacy. They require bioequivelence in regards to kinetics/dynamics BUT do you know the range they allow in the FDA? 80-125 percent within the range of the brand name. The average difference is about 3.5 percent which is very signifigant. However drugs that consistently do not work as well very likely have a great variablity in equivelence.


That 3.5% thing was back in the 80s/90s. And actually for all batches of drugs, between batches of the same product and between said products and its AB rated generic it is a similar requirement. But according to the most recent 2007 FDA metaanalysis, the average variability between generic and brand drugs was 2.3% - which is actually roughly the same as variability of specific lots of branded drugs in the real world, too.

I can see how variances in extended release drugs can vary...but I really do think that the theories behind why instant release meds don't work is mostly based off of anecdote and not hard science.

They also only require the same "active ingredients" which means the other ingredients can vary in chemistry. For example the salts of anions can vary, as well as various chemical bonds in the forumla as long as the "active" ingredients are similar. Again they only have to be within a range for active ingredient concentrations.

I read your example of hydroxyzine salts below to explain what you meant. To be clear - there is NO difference in salts allowed. That would make it a completely different drug product. Hence, you cannot substitute omeprazole sodium for omeprazole magnesium. To be AB rated in the FDA Orange Book, all active ingredient must be chemically identical.
 
Last edited:
They require bioequivelence in regards to kinetics/dynamics BUT do you know the range they allow in the FDA? 80-125 percent within the range of the brand name. The average difference is about 3.5 percent which is very signifigant. However drugs that consistently do not work as well very likely have a great variablity in equivelence.


http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesF...afely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/ucm167991.htm

I searched and searched but could not find anything about a 80-125 percent range. Care to provide a link?

Is it not possible for a 3.5 percent difference to occur between two separate batches of the same brand name drug?
 
Last edited:
I don't know. You asked me what my state law says and I told you. I don't know the laws of other states.

Here in Texas, a pharmacist may dispense a generic unless the prescriber handwrites "Brand Medically Necessary" on the prescription, or unless the patient demands brand.

At the CVS I work at, we simply don't carry most brands which have generics and refuse to special order them (except for when it comes to synthroid/levoxyl, cytomel etc and sometimes drugs like Adderall XR when the patient's insurance company covers the brand but not the generic). Our "numbers" go down every time we dispense brand medications for which generics are available.

And then there's CSI where we offer to fax doctors with info about therapeutic interchanges which could save patients money.
 
There is an interesting thread in the Topics in Healthcare forum on SDN about pharmaceutical companies. I raised the issue of samples and my belief that they often interfere with evidence based prescribed. Plus the burden of pharmacists having to get patients switched to generics after samples run out, etc. etc. Bah. I don't like samples.

Someone replied and said that pharmacists get kickbacks for switching patients to generics. I have personally *never* seen this, but maybe I'm sheltered?

I've worked a number of different places and never heard tale of an incentive program to switch patients to generics. What I *have* seen - MANY - times are contests and other incentives to get people to try new brand name drugs. My very first exposure was over 5 years ago when there was a contest at my employer (sponsored by a drug company) encouraging pharmacists to get patients to switch from other PPIs to Aciphex.

If these "Generic Switch" incentives exist, who pays them? Generic drug companies? Insurance companies? Who are they paid TO? I kind of doubt they go to individual pharmacists, since the majority of them don't own the pharmacies.

I'm interested to see if anyone has ever heard of this?

Original thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=10930026#post10930026

I have been a retail Pharmacy Manager for 7 years now. Never once have I ever received a "kickback" for dispensing generic drugs. The bottom line in retail pharmacy is the profit margin on generics is greater (or it used to be before Wal-Mart and the $4 generics). All chains keep track of generic efficiecy. It does not figure into my bonus nor has anyone ever said anything to me about it. It is just a number on a report.
 
I have been a retail Pharmacy Manager for 7 years now. Never once have I ever received a "kickback" for dispensing generic drugs. The bottom line in retail pharmacy is the profit margin on generics is greater (or it used to be before Wal-Mart and the $4 generics). All chains keep track of generic efficiecy. It does not figure into my bonus nor has anyone ever said anything to me about it. It is just a number on a report.

Shut up and get on your moped and ride around 75 and 635 interchange for a while! Weather don't get better than this.
:meanie:
 
Shut up and get on your moped and ride around 75 and 635 interchange for a while! Weather don't get better than this.
:meanie:

Dude, I told you no more moped. I sold it and now I have the most awesome car produced in the last 40 years! I am going to go out and wash it now.

I will post a picture if you tell me what file hosting service to use since Image Shack is corrupt.
 
Dude, I told you no more moped. I sold it and now I have the most awesome car produced in the last 40 years! I am going to go out and wash it now.

I will post a picture if you tell me what file hosting service to use since Image Shack is corrupt.


ohhh...so you did have a moped.. wuss. What's the sayin about moped...fun until you get caught on one??

I'm now using tinypic. More cumbersome because you have to type in verification.. Here's google on imageshack and virus

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=imageshack+virus
 
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesF...afely/UnderstandingGenericDrugs/ucm167991.htm

I searched and searched but could not find anything about a 80-125 percent range. Care to provide a link?

Is it not possible for a 3.5 percent difference to occur between two separate batches of the same brand name drug?

We learned 80-125% in school, it has to do statistical analysis (specificly 90% CI), that's why it doesn't seem like it is centered about 100%, but it is evenly distributed when looked at by CI. Here's a link.

Here is a passage I found interesting from your link (emphases added):

These studies compared the absorption of brand name and generic drugs into a person’s body. .... The average difference in absorption into the body between the generic and the brand name was only 3.5 percent .... This amount of difference would be expected and acceptable, whether for one batch of brand name drug tested against another batch of the same brand, or for a generic tested against a brand name. In fact, there have been studies in which branded drugs were compared with themselves as well as with a generic. As a rule, the difference for the generic-to-brand comparison was about the same as the brand-to-brand comparison.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but a clinical pharmacist is not a clinician who makes any diagnosis or treatment plan. They simply implement the doctors plan. Managing INR is not being a clinician I am sorry. That is a pharmcist task of proper dosing etc. You do not start someone on coumadin, you follow the order.

For being a pharmacist some of you do not understand the basic laws that govern generic medication production. Maybe you should read up on this and it may explain to you why generics often do not work as well as their counterparts which are name brand.

To spell it out for you, generics need to meet certain criteria, none of which include similar efficacy. They require bioequivelence in regards to kinetics/dynamics BUT do you know the range they allow in the FDA? 80-125 percent within the range of the brand name. The average difference is about 3.5 percent which is very signifigant. However drugs that consistently do not work as well very likely have a great variablity in equivelence.

They also only require the same "active ingredients" which means the other ingredients can vary in chemistry. For example the salts of anions can vary, as well as various chemical bonds in the forumla as long as the "active" ingredients are similar. Again they only have to be within a range for active ingredient concentrations.

If you understood your field you would see as clear as day that with the acceptable ranges the FDA accepts and the literature showing average variations among generics, that it is completely likely that this difference often exists and explains why some are more similar than others based on these factors.

You have mad many disparaging comments in this thread. This does not become a professional who is supposed to practice evidence based medicine. You have made a number of factual errors. You show a complete lack of understanding of bioequivalence or pharmacokinetics.

First you would be hard pressed to find a single study not paid for by the brand name company that shows generic drugs are not equivalent to brand name drugs. Remember, anecdotal evidence does not count. You clearly do not understand generic substitution or bioeuivalence or you would never have brought up the hydroxyzine HCL vs pamoate issue as there is no state that would allow the substitution of one for the other as they are different drugs. But more importantly, where the rubber meets the road, there is no clinical difference between brands and generics for the patient. Nobody is dying because 99.99999% of all ACEI prescriptions are being filled generically. We are not having massive cases of CHF because people are not using Zestril or Prinivil and are using Lisinopril instead.

Second, "authorized generics" as quoted by WVUPharm2007 are identical to the name brand product. They are made in the same factory, they are identical inevery way except the markings. If a patient were to fail on Sertraline made by Greenstone and succeed on Zoloft, it would have to be all in their head as they are made in the same plant by the same company.

The 80-120 crap is just a statistical model that you clearly do not understand.
To be approved for marketing, a generic drug must demonstrate therapeutic equivalence to its brand-name counterpart, be manufactured under the same strict standards of good manufacturing practice regulations, and meet the same batch requirements for identity, strength, purity, and quality as required for brand products.2,21-24
There is a common misconception that generic drug levels or bioavailability may vary up to 20% from brand. The misconception generally stems from not understanding the statistics involved in evaluating bioequivalence. In reality, the bioavailability of most generic drugs differs from their brand-name counterparts by less than 4% in the U.S.1
Although there are anecdotal reports of adverse effects when patients switch from brand-name drugs to their generic counter parts, there is no proof that therapeutically equivalent (i.e., AB-rated in U.S.) drugs would differ in efficacy. Keep in mind that generic products are only tested against the brand product.4,21 Therefore, in the U.S., AB-rated generics may not be significantly different from the brand, but there is no testing to prove that they are bioequivalent to one another.
Generic substitution with therapeutic equivalent products generally saves patients a substantial amount of money without adverse effects. In rare cases, adverse effects have been noted when a generic product is used in place of the brand product (e.g., allergies to inactive ingredients, etc). In these cases, an authorized generic or branded generic (the actual brand-name drug product relabeled and marketed under a generic product name), if available, can be considered.
The Pharmacists Letter.

Finally, you have no clue what I do for a living. I have been practicing pharmacy since before you were born. I make a living saving the ass of residents who have no clue how to prescribe medication. I have forgotten more about drugs than you will ever know. I catch dosing errors, drug interactions, inappropriate therapy and plain old fashioned errors on a daily basis. I would appreciate it if you just said thanks and be on your way.
 
lakers.gif
 
No, that's why they do bioequivalence studies before the bioavailability studies. Those do mean efficacy.

And what the heck do you mean by polymorphism? That term, as far as I know, has no meaning outside of genetics. Don't disagree with the excipients, but hypersensitivity issues are excessively rare.

Polymorphism in pharmaceuticals
Polymorphism is important in the development of pharmaceutical ingredients. Many drugs receive regulatory approval for only a single crystal form or polymorph. In a classic patent case the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline defended its patent for the polymorph type II of the active ingredient in Zantac against competitors while that of the polymorph type I had already expired. Polymorphism in drugs can also have direct medical implications. Medicine is often administered orally as a crystalline solid and dissolution rates depend on the exact crystal form of a polymorph.
Cefdinir is a drug appearing in 11 patents from 5 pharmaceutical companies in which a total of 5 different polymorphs are described. The original inventor Fujisawa now Astellas (with US partner Abbott) extended the original patent covering a suspension with a new anhydrous formulation. Competitors in turn patented hydrates of the drug with varying water content, which were described with only basic techniques such as infrared spectroscopy and XRPD, a practice criticised by in one review [7] because these techniques at the most suggest a different crystal structure but are unable to specify one however, given the recent advances in XRPD, it is perfectly feasible to obtain the structure of a polymorph of a drug, even if there is no single crystal available for that polymorphic form. These techniques also tend to overlook chemical impurities or even co-components. Abbott researchers realised this the hard way when, in one patent application, it was ignored that their new cefdinir crystal form was, in fact, that of a pyridinium salt. The review also questioned whether the polymorphs offered any advantages to the existing drug: something clearly demanded in a new patent.
Acetylsalicylic acid elusive 2nd polymorph was first discovered by Vishweshwar et al.[8], fine structural details were given by Bond et al.[9] A new crystal type was found after attempted co-crystallization of aspirin and levetiracetam from hot acetonitrile. The form II is stable only at 100 K and reverts back to form I at ambient temperature. In the (unambiguous) form I, two salicylic molecules form centrosymmetric dimers through the acetyl groups with the (acidic) methyl proton to carbonyl hydrogen bonds, and, in the newly-claimed form II, each salicylic molecule forms the same hydrogen bonds, but then with two neighbouring molecules instead of one. With respect to the hydrogen bonds formed by the carboxylic acid groups, both polymorphs form identical dimer structures.
  • Paracetamol powder has poor compression properties: this poses difficulty in making tablets, so a new polymorph of paracetamol is discovered which is more compressible.
  • due to differences in solubility of polymorphs, one polymorph may be more active therapeutically than another polymorph of same drug
  • cortisone acetate exists in at least five different polymorphs, four of which are unstable in water and change to a stable form.
  • carbamazepine (used in epilepsy and trigeminal neuralgia) beta-polymorph developed from solvent of high dielectric constant ex aliphatic alcohol, whereas alpha polymorph crystallized from solvents of low dielectric constant such as carbon tetrachloride
 
Polymorphism in pharmaceuticals
Polymorphism is important in the development of pharmaceutical ingredients. Many drugs receive regulatory approval for only a single crystal form or polymorph. In a classic patent case the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline defended its patent for the polymorph type II of the active ingredient in Zantac against competitors while that of the polymorph type I had already expired. Polymorphism in drugs can also have direct medical implications. Medicine is often administered orally as a crystalline solid and dissolution rates depend on the exact crystal form of a polymorph.
Cefdinir is a drug appearing in 11 patents from 5 pharmaceutical companies in which a total of 5 different polymorphs are described. The original inventor Fujisawa now Astellas (with US partner Abbott) extended the original patent covering a suspension with a new anhydrous formulation. Competitors in turn patented hydrates of the drug with varying water content, which were described with only basic techniques such as infrared spectroscopy and XRPD, a practice criticised by in one review [7] because these techniques at the most suggest a different crystal structure but are unable to specify one however, given the recent advances in XRPD, it is perfectly feasible to obtain the structure of a polymorph of a drug, even if there is no single crystal available for that polymorphic form. These techniques also tend to overlook chemical impurities or even co-components. Abbott researchers realised this the hard way when, in one patent application, it was ignored that their new cefdinir crystal form was, in fact, that of a pyridinium salt. The review also questioned whether the polymorphs offered any advantages to the existing drug: something clearly demanded in a new patent.


Acetylsalicylic acid elusive 2nd polymorph was first discovered by Vishweshwar et al.[8], fine structural details were given by Bond et al.[9] A new crystal type was found after attempted co-crystallization of aspirin and levetiracetam from hot acetonitrile. The form II is stable only at 100 K and reverts back to form I at ambient temperature. In the (unambiguous) form I, two salicylic molecules form centrosymmetric dimers through the acetyl groups with the (acidic) methyl proton to carbonyl hydrogen bonds, and, in the newly-claimed form II, each salicylic molecule forms the same hydrogen bonds, but then with two neighbouring molecules instead of one. With respect to the hydrogen bonds formed by the carboxylic acid groups, both polymorphs form identical dimer structures.
  • Paracetamol powder has poor compression properties: this poses difficulty in making tablets, so a new polymorph of paracetamol is discovered which is more compressible.
  • due to differences in solubility of polymorphs, one polymorph may be more active therapeutically than another polymorph of same drug
  • cortisone acetate exists in at least five different polymorphs, four of which are unstable in water and change to a stable form.
  • carbamazepine (used in epilepsy and trigeminal neuralgia) beta-polymorph developed from solvent of high dielectric constant ex aliphatic alcohol, whereas alpha polymorph crystallized from solvents of low dielectric constant such as carbon tetrachloride

Someone already posted this on Page 2 of this thread. But they at least just linked to it, which I think is better than copy/pasting directly from Wikipedia without attribution. At any rate, the question has already been dealt with and the thread seems to have moved on.
 
Top