Bringing on the generic drugs

October 30, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Times are tough enough that more people are beginning to switch to generic drugs to save money. Insurers like Indianapolis-based WellPoint are playing a role, too, by pushing policy holders toward generics.

People also are splitting pills and seeing doctors less often to save hard-earned dollars.

The trend could cost pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly and Co. $10 billion in revenue in 2009 because prescription drug sales are projected to grow at the slowest rate in at least a half-century.

In the end, how will this affect health? Are people being penny wise and pound foolish? And are you as confident in generic medications as the original drugs?

  • My doctors prescribe generics for me. Most of the time they work fine, but there are days I wonder if the meds contain anything other than filler. I wonder how good quality control is at generic drug manufacturing plants, or how good it is at brand name drug plants for that matter.
  • Joyce makes a good point in that there may be some variability in the quality and expected benefit of some generics. There are quite a number of them that do work well and from my expereince it is trial and error. It would be helpful to the consumer if there were a reliable and objective resource that provided information for more informed decision-making. My most recent experience was good which reinforces me to continue to consider this option. If insurance companies are beginning to formally recommend generics they will want to look at the reliability of what they are promoting. Perhaps that will put additional pressure on the generic drug industry to increase reliability and quality.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.