Our last blog discussed the rise in popularity of generic prescription drugs domestically without mentioning their status overseas. Since most consumers outside the US market pay for drugs out of pocket and cannot afford expensive name brands, generics are very popular internationally. With the drop in brand name drug market share domestically, pharmaceutical companies are more than willing to fill this desire for low cost drugs.
Emerging markets are set to overtake US markets in overall sales. Pharmaceutical revenue in China in particular, with its current strides towards universal health coverage and improving its healthcare infrastructure, is predicted to double by 2013. Much of the growth in emerging markets (i.e., China, Brazil, Russia and India) is driven by low-cost generic drugs.
As a result, many pharmaceutical companies are now hawking branded generic drugs in overseas markets. While the term “branded generic” may seem at odds, it is actually becoming quite a lucrative market.
Americans, because they have been “brand washed” so extensively, tend to view generic drugs as lower in quality than brand name products, despite containing the same active ingredients. Marketed to less extensively, overseas populations are less biased against lower cost, generic formulations.
Branded generics make sense. There is no additional cost for a company to attach their company name to a generic formula, instilling consumer confidence in a less expensive formulation without adding millions in cost to marketing and promoting a specific brand name.
Companies approach this tactic differently. Some associate their main brand with the generic, while others purchase local overseas generic companies to sell their products under a different name.
“We are able to create different tiers of products at prices they haven’t previously seen with our stamp of approval,” Andrew P. Witty, the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline told the NY Times.
According to the same article, “It definitely represents a change in thinking,” said David Simmons, the president of Pfizer’s established products business unit, whose company has already added over 200 generic products to its portfolio.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Discounted or Abandoned... What's a brand name pharmaceutical to do?
According to a recent study by Pharma Insight, released by Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions, in 2009 there were 2.6 billion prescriptions filled for generic drugs and only 1.3 billion for brand-name medications. In a down economy, more people turn to generics as a way to save money. This can cost the pharmaceutical industry billions of dollars every year.
Increased request for generics over brand names is not the only trend seen in the drug market. Abandonment is the term for prescriptions left at the pharmacy that are never fulfilled. Last year the abandonment rate for new prescriptions of brand name drugs was 8.6%, a 23% increase over the rate in 2008 and a 68% increase since 2006.
According to Dea Belasi, consulting practice leader of managed markets for Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions, “What’s peculiar is that the rate of increase among patients walking away is almost unprecedented. The [abandonment] trend that we are seeing is just going up and up.”
Belasi suggests macroeconomic factors such as the housing crisis, current recession and lower household incomes are behind the rising rate of prescription noncompliance. Consumers are trying to save money by self-medicating or reducing overall drug consumption.
For more on how the economy is affecting patient compliance in healthcare, please read our current online issue of CONNECT. To subscribe to this free, online newsletter, click here.
Increased request for generics over brand names is not the only trend seen in the drug market. Abandonment is the term for prescriptions left at the pharmacy that are never fulfilled. Last year the abandonment rate for new prescriptions of brand name drugs was 8.6%, a 23% increase over the rate in 2008 and a 68% increase since 2006.
According to Dea Belasi, consulting practice leader of managed markets for Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions, “What’s peculiar is that the rate of increase among patients walking away is almost unprecedented. The [abandonment] trend that we are seeing is just going up and up.”
Belasi suggests macroeconomic factors such as the housing crisis, current recession and lower household incomes are behind the rising rate of prescription noncompliance. Consumers are trying to save money by self-medicating or reducing overall drug consumption.
For more on how the economy is affecting patient compliance in healthcare, please read our current online issue of CONNECT. To subscribe to this free, online newsletter, click here.
Friday, February 26, 2010
What Would You Do? Cost and Ethic Concerns in National Children's Health Study
If a stranger knocked on your door and politely asked if they could collect your toenail clippings, body fluids and dust from your sheets for the sake of science, what would you say?
The National Children’s Study is doing just that. Its goal is to enroll 100,000 pregnant women across the country, then monitor them and their babies from before they are born until they turn 21.
The study involves collecting copious amounts of extremely detailed information in hopes of connecting patterns between environment (natural and man-made); biological, chemical, and social factors, physical surroundings, behavioral development, genetics, cultural and familial influences and geographic locations to see how they interact to effect a child’s health.
As you can imagine, the magnitude of the study has been compared to that of a lunar landing but critics are crying foul on the escalating cost of the study as well as ethical issues surrounding its structure.
Part of the cost escalation comes from enrollment issues. Instead of receiving a “yes” from roughly one in fourteen potential participants as initially predicted, the reality is one in forty. Let’s be honest. Twenty-one years is a long time and the quantity of information gathered during visits is burdensome and prohibitive. Many do not want to be bothered.
Racial and cultural issues slow enrollment as well. Study locations are chosen based on having diverse populations with a high number of births. The melting pot that makes our country great also makes recruiting in urban areas more difficult. A wide variety of languages and cultures are encountered, requiring translation services to communicate with potential study participants. With good reason, non-English speakers are suspicious of random strangers knocking on their doors and are tentative at best opening them.
Economics also effect enrollment. It is easier to draft participants in cash rich areas. Movie theatre ads and obstetricians reach potential patients. For a study to be comprehensive and inclusive though, you cannot exclude women unable to afford life’s little luxuries or prenatal care. Reaching these populations takes more time and finesse, and thus, money.
Ethics in information access are another criticism in the structure of the study. Protocol restricts study employees from urging participants to change their health habits. Is it right to make the effort to reach specific populations and not take time to educate them?
How much information should the study provide to participants and their communities? If a genetic mutation is discovered that may or may not appear, and holds no cure, should the participant be notified? Is it worth the worry (perhaps unnecessary) it could cause? If an environmental trigger is suspected to cause a medical condition within a community, should it be reported? The study provides an opportunity to help people and communities but how do you do it without skewing study data?
This is a lot to consider over the course of twenty-one years. If not on target from the start, a lot of time, energy and money will be wasted. For the time being, those heading up the study are taking the criticism seriously. At the moment, most of the study is currently on hold while the scientific community considers these issues.
*****************************************************************
The National Children’s Study will examine the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of 100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth until age 21. The goal of the Study is to improve the health and well-being of children.
For more information, visit their website: www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov
The National Children’s Study is doing just that. Its goal is to enroll 100,000 pregnant women across the country, then monitor them and their babies from before they are born until they turn 21.
The study involves collecting copious amounts of extremely detailed information in hopes of connecting patterns between environment (natural and man-made); biological, chemical, and social factors, physical surroundings, behavioral development, genetics, cultural and familial influences and geographic locations to see how they interact to effect a child’s health.
As you can imagine, the magnitude of the study has been compared to that of a lunar landing but critics are crying foul on the escalating cost of the study as well as ethical issues surrounding its structure.
Part of the cost escalation comes from enrollment issues. Instead of receiving a “yes” from roughly one in fourteen potential participants as initially predicted, the reality is one in forty. Let’s be honest. Twenty-one years is a long time and the quantity of information gathered during visits is burdensome and prohibitive. Many do not want to be bothered.
Racial and cultural issues slow enrollment as well. Study locations are chosen based on having diverse populations with a high number of births. The melting pot that makes our country great also makes recruiting in urban areas more difficult. A wide variety of languages and cultures are encountered, requiring translation services to communicate with potential study participants. With good reason, non-English speakers are suspicious of random strangers knocking on their doors and are tentative at best opening them.
Economics also effect enrollment. It is easier to draft participants in cash rich areas. Movie theatre ads and obstetricians reach potential patients. For a study to be comprehensive and inclusive though, you cannot exclude women unable to afford life’s little luxuries or prenatal care. Reaching these populations takes more time and finesse, and thus, money.
Ethics in information access are another criticism in the structure of the study. Protocol restricts study employees from urging participants to change their health habits. Is it right to make the effort to reach specific populations and not take time to educate them?
How much information should the study provide to participants and their communities? If a genetic mutation is discovered that may or may not appear, and holds no cure, should the participant be notified? Is it worth the worry (perhaps unnecessary) it could cause? If an environmental trigger is suspected to cause a medical condition within a community, should it be reported? The study provides an opportunity to help people and communities but how do you do it without skewing study data?
This is a lot to consider over the course of twenty-one years. If not on target from the start, a lot of time, energy and money will be wasted. For the time being, those heading up the study are taking the criticism seriously. At the moment, most of the study is currently on hold while the scientific community considers these issues.
*****************************************************************
The National Children’s Study will examine the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of 100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth until age 21. The goal of the Study is to improve the health and well-being of children.
For more information, visit their website: www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov
Monday, February 1, 2010
I Say Medicine, You Say Midewin
Think about the word, “medicine.” What does it mean to you? Do you think of multicolored pills? Your doctor? The pharmacy down the street?
If you are an American Indian from the Ojibwe tribe, the word for medicine is “midewin” (pronounced ma-DAY-win) and it means ‘from the Earth.’ It’s subtle, but the difference is clearly there. For American Indians, wellness does not come from a pill. Healing comes from plants and herbs that treat disease. Not viewed as a physical response with a cause rooted in the laws of science, disease encompasses a patient’s spirit, family, community and environment.
Dr. Doreen Wiese, who is of the Ojibwe tribe, is trying to revive the Ojibwe language precisely because of this difference. In the United States especially, native languages have withered up and died for two main reasons: first, because parents felt their children needed to learn English to become successful in American culture and second because until the 1940's, Native American children taken from their homes were forced to only speak English.
A PhD from Northern Illinois University who studies oral history and the ways in which learning is passed through generations, Dr. Wiese believes, “…language is the thread that keeps culture together. Language is woven into our brains and psyches and memories.”
It’s true. Language reflects culture. While the words can be translated into English, the meaning behind the words may change. An Ojibwean story about “midewin” takes on a new meaning when the word becomes “medicine.”
Dr. Wiese’s goal is to write down the Ojibwe language so it can be taught to others. Not an easy task. Part of her impetus in doing so came when she attended a religious ceremony where a speaker claimed God gives everyone a native language. “He said that if you can’t pray in your native language, the Creator cannot hear you. I wanted to learn how to pray in Ojibwe. I wanted to learn how to tell our stories in Ojibwe. That’s the only way we can be whole again as a native people.”
If you are an American Indian from the Ojibwe tribe, the word for medicine is “midewin” (pronounced ma-DAY-win) and it means ‘from the Earth.’ It’s subtle, but the difference is clearly there. For American Indians, wellness does not come from a pill. Healing comes from plants and herbs that treat disease. Not viewed as a physical response with a cause rooted in the laws of science, disease encompasses a patient’s spirit, family, community and environment.
Dr. Doreen Wiese, who is of the Ojibwe tribe, is trying to revive the Ojibwe language precisely because of this difference. In the United States especially, native languages have withered up and died for two main reasons: first, because parents felt their children needed to learn English to become successful in American culture and second because until the 1940's, Native American children taken from their homes were forced to only speak English.
A PhD from Northern Illinois University who studies oral history and the ways in which learning is passed through generations, Dr. Wiese believes, “…language is the thread that keeps culture together. Language is woven into our brains and psyches and memories.”
It’s true. Language reflects culture. While the words can be translated into English, the meaning behind the words may change. An Ojibwean story about “midewin” takes on a new meaning when the word becomes “medicine.”
Dr. Wiese’s goal is to write down the Ojibwe language so it can be taught to others. Not an easy task. Part of her impetus in doing so came when she attended a religious ceremony where a speaker claimed God gives everyone a native language. “He said that if you can’t pray in your native language, the Creator cannot hear you. I wanted to learn how to pray in Ojibwe. I wanted to learn how to tell our stories in Ojibwe. That’s the only way we can be whole again as a native people.”
Monday, January 11, 2010
I Know Not What I Pour
As a translation agency that specializes in medical and life science translation, we work on a lot of patient targeted materials. Often these communications hope to elicit patient compliance in some form or another. Many aspects about a patient influence their compliance: culture and language, education level, style of commucation they receive.
A recent experimental study through the Know Your Limit campaign in the United Kingdom indicates that a patient’s noncompliance may not always be a conscious decision.
When asking men and women in the U.K. to pour what they thought was a single serving equivalent of alcohol (25ml, about an ounce in the US), the average pour was 38ml (in reality one and half servings).
The experiment found men to be the most generous in measuring their spirits: 43ml was the average manly pour versus an average of 32ml poured by women. Wine is a different story altogether, in this case women are more generous, averaging a 186ml pour, which is 2.4 times the standard wine serving of 76.25ml (2.5 ounces in the US).
Studies show drinking more than the recommended limit for daily alcohol consumption; (2-3 units for women and 3-4 units for men in the U.K.) dramatically increases their risk of heart and liver disease, cancer, and stroke.
Anyone tracking their alcohol consumption for the purpose of maintaining their health may not be doing as well as they thought. While this finding does not affect the outcome of a clinical trial or important health study, it is an insight into patient behavior. The truth is patient compliance is affected by many aspects, some conscious, some not.
A recent experimental study through the Know Your Limit campaign in the United Kingdom indicates that a patient’s noncompliance may not always be a conscious decision.
When asking men and women in the U.K. to pour what they thought was a single serving equivalent of alcohol (25ml, about an ounce in the US), the average pour was 38ml (in reality one and half servings).
The experiment found men to be the most generous in measuring their spirits: 43ml was the average manly pour versus an average of 32ml poured by women. Wine is a different story altogether, in this case women are more generous, averaging a 186ml pour, which is 2.4 times the standard wine serving of 76.25ml (2.5 ounces in the US).
Studies show drinking more than the recommended limit for daily alcohol consumption; (2-3 units for women and 3-4 units for men in the U.K.) dramatically increases their risk of heart and liver disease, cancer, and stroke.
Anyone tracking their alcohol consumption for the purpose of maintaining their health may not be doing as well as they thought. While this finding does not affect the outcome of a clinical trial or important health study, it is an insight into patient behavior. The truth is patient compliance is affected by many aspects, some conscious, some not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)