Generic drugs online

Source: RedOrbit

Date: 28-Sep-2008

Wonderful news. Gordon Brown has promised free prescriptions to all cancer sufferers.

And, eventually, this will be extended to all people suffering from long-term problems such as asthma. It will be paid for by savings on the drugs budget such as switching to generic drugs rather than expensive drug company-branded products. Surely no one could object. At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man I am tempted to ask: "Have you thought this through or is it just a soundbite in an attempt to rescue the opinion polls?"

We are all taxpayers and it is sensible to prescribe drugs by their chemical or generic name rather than the brand. It means getting the same drug for less money. The problem is that this has already been done.

According to the Government's own figures generic prescribing accounted for 55 per cent of all prescriptions in 1995 and by 2005 this figure had risen to 80 per cent. The final 20 per cent are either drugs which are still patented and so not available as a generic, or ones which are produced in a special slow release form when patients should not switch between brands. There may still be a small amount of money to squeeze out of the drugs budgets but there is no golden egg left.

Of course I agree that all cancer patients should have free prescriptions but this is complicated. Cancer is not one disease. Take cervical cancer.

Every year about a third of cervical smears are abnormal. These women do not have cancer. But the neck of the womb can go through different stages. From dyskaryosis it can develop to CIN 1 then CIN 2 and CIN 3 before developing carcinoma in situ. This could be defined as an early cancer but at any of these stages it is curable.

Finally in a few women it becomes a true invasive cancer. Where along this pathway do we say that this is cancer and prescriptions should be free?

And there are many curable cancers. Many bowel cancers caught early are curable. Should someone who had a bowel cancer removed 20 years ago still have free prescriptions? If not, do we allow free prescriptions at diagnosis but withdraw them after five years?

How do we define a cancer? Some skin cancers are not really cancers. The basal cell carcinoma in the skin is locally malignant. Technically it is a carcinoma or cancer but it only spreads locally, does not affect life expectancy and does not spread throughout the body. In another skin cancer some sun-damaged skin is pre- malignant. Not a cancer yet but it could gradually change. Where along the spectrum of change do we allow free prescriptions?

He has also suggested eventually there will be free prescriptions for everyone with a long-term illness. This is excellent news. If cancer sufferers have free prescriptions why should someone with severe heart failure, motor neurone disease or multiple sclerosis pay? But what long-term conditions are covered? Asthma was mentioned but do we include all those people who once had an inhaler as a child? If not, where is the cut-off?

Although the soundbite made good headlines I wonder whether these ideas have really been thought through.

We cannot list some diseases that are 'worthy' of free prescription and some that are not. pounds7.10 is too much for many people whether they have cancer, heart disease or a chest infection. At the moment more than eight out of 10 prescriptions dispensed are free. Every child and everyone over 60 gets all prescriptions free. The Queen, Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Alan Sugar are all entitled to free paracetamol.

The only solution is a complete review of the system. Perhaps this is an area where an all-party committee of MPs or an independent working party could produce a report. I would love to see all cancer patients get free prescriptions but, like the mythical perpetual motion machine, it may be harder to design than the soundbite implies.