Use of Medicines 2010

The IMS Insti­tute for Health­care Infor­mat­ics recently pub­lished The Use of Med­i­cines in the United States: Review of 2010.  Within the report is a list of the top prod­ucts by pre­scrip­tion.  An obser­va­tion from that list:  22 of the top 25 are gener­ics. There is no bal­ance between generic and non-branded prod­ucts.  (By the way, the three non-branded drugs listed will lose patent exclu­siv­ity in 2011 and mak­ing gener­ics com­mer­cially available.)

I have worked in generic (ANDA) and inno­v­a­tive (NDA) research and devel­op­ment envi­ron­ments.  Both envi­ron­ments are very com­pet­i­tive but with dif­fer­ent goals.  The pri­mary goal of the generic envi­ron­ment is to be FDA approved and ready for com­merce on the day the non-branded product’s patent exclu­siv­ity expires. The very big generic devel­op­ment houses knock out gener­ics like machines; many prod­ucts, min­i­mal risk and inex­pen­sive research but not much profit.  It is not unheard of to see four­teen or more gener­ics approved for sale on the day the non-branded med­ica­tion loses patent exclu­siv­ity and price ero­sion of unit prof­its is in excess of 80%.  Said another way, “lit­tle risk, lit­tle reward”.

The pri­mary goal of the non-branded R&D envi­ron­ment is to incor­po­rate an effi­ca­cious new drug mol­e­cule into a dosage form that a rea­son­ably large patient pop­u­la­tion will uti­lize.  Get­ting a prod­uct to this point is very expen­sive in both money and time; typ­i­cally sev­eral bil­lion dol­lars and over ten years but with an approval rate of about 1 in 12 (or 11 of 12 new prod­ucts fail at some point in devel­op­ment).  The reward (profit) can be sub­stan­tial; Lipitor’s 2010 sales were 10.6 bil­lion USD.  Or, “big risk, big reward”.

What con­cerns me is that the dearth of non-branded med­ica­tions on the list could indi­cate some dis­turb­ing trends.

  1. Per­ceived lack of inno­va­tion in big pharma’s prod­uct pipeline or
  2. Approval require­ments are too strict or out of bal­ance with the rewards of a new, inno­v­a­tive med­ica­tion or
  3. The Health­Care sys­tem is pro­hib­i­tively expen­sive forc­ing con­sumers to cheaper generic alternatives.

There are many, many intel­li­gent researchers in Big Pharma, so I do not think there is a lack of ideas.  It is com­mon for the FDA to request increas­ingly more and more expen­sive pre-approval clin­i­cal stud­ies.  I believe the core prob­lem is the over-priced health care/insurance sys­tem.  Peo­ple with high-deductible health insur­ance and lim­ited pre­scrip­tion co-pays are forced to seek out gener­ics because they can­not afford the cost of the non-branded med­ica­tion.  Many do not have pre­scrip­tion co-pay until the deductible is met.  These peo­ple are forced to seek out the most inex­pen­sive med­ica­tion avail­able even though a more expen­sive, more effi­ca­cious med­ica­tion is avail­able.  When fair and equi­table health insur­ance is avail­able to all Amer­i­cans, I believe bal­ance between non-branded and generic med­ica­tions will be restored.

© Grove Ridge Con­sult­ing, 2011

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>