Pharmacy
Generic Drugs vs. Name Brand Drugs
What is the difference between name brand and generic medication?
Name brand medication is protected by a patent for a certain number of years after the drug is developed. Development of a new drug generally requires a pharmaceutical company to invest millions of dollars and several years of research and development, including testing the drug, receiving approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and marketing the drug. While the patent is in effect, no other company can produce the drug using that company’s formula. It is possible, however, for more than one company simultaneously to be researching and developing a drug to address a particular condition or disease. In fact, once early research demonstrates an issue can be addressed with at least some success through pharmaceuticals, many companies may race toward the finish line.
Should I accept generic medication substitutes, or insist on the name brand?
Most insurance companies require a pharmacy to fill a prescription with the least expensive generic available, unless the physician specifies that a name brand must be used. Filling a prescription with a name brand may lead to a higher cost for the consumer. Your physician must decide whether you require the original drug formula, or whether a generic form of the drug is acceptable. Some speculate that generics may be less dependable in terms of consistency of ingredients or even quality of ingredients.
INDEX of NAME BRAND vs. GENERIC DRUGS
You can find a cross reference of brand name drugs to their equivalent generics by going to a search engine and typing in “brand name vs. generic drugs.” This website does not endorse a particular source. Your pharmacist or physician can also provide you with this information.
Tell us your experiences in the comment box below:
Do you take generic medications?
Do you purchase your meds through mail-order companies? Does this work well?
Do you miss having a close relationship with a pharmacist?
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Oh, Southern Belle, Regrettably, I don’t believe he would have received anything beyond making him comfortable. Check out the criteria: he was quite old, and had a terminal illness. Under the proposed national health plan, he would not qualify for expensive treatments (except of course that as a Senator, he would be under a better plan). Remember that there are 40+ million people who will then be covered who are not covered now, many because they choose not to be, and others because they are not in the country legally. There will not be as many treatment opportunities available.
So let’s talk about someone who is not a Senator…there is a clip on YouTube where a lady talks about her elderly mother receiving heart surgery because the surgeon made the call that she had what it took to survive it. Obama responded that she would have received pills to make her comfortable. Check it out, and then tell me what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2nXANNqFnA
September 27th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Ted Kennedy received his health care under the government Medicare program which will not change after the proposed health care reform, and his Medicare supplimental policy which he paid for with his government earnings….for someone to believe a cancer patient will be told “take a pill” is sad…it shows us how media influences our thinking…..I believe Ted Kennedy would have received the same treatment after the reform, the same care that we want available to our family members, heaven forbid, they come down with cancer .
August 31st, 2009 at 10:39 am
I agree with Topper… Ted is dead, and hopefully this government takeover of healthcare.
Had Kennedy had the government run healthcare now being proposed, he wouldn’t have lived the nearly year and one-half since being diagnosed with a brain tumor. He would have been denied treatments such as the surgery he underwent, radiation and chemo, as he was 77 years old and had inoperable cancer. He would heve been told to “take some pills” to relieve the pain and would heve been dead in two months.
Think about that.
August 31st, 2009 at 10:29 am
I’m hearing all this drib about passing health care for “Ted Kennedy”.. How about listening to the more than 50% of Americans that do not want the healthcare proposals now on the table?… how about NOT passing health care for “the people of this country”?
August 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I have a great relationship with the Pharmacists at Kroger’s. They recognize me and just go on over and get my meds out of the bin. Not sure if that’s a good thing or not…hmmm. I’m going to try the 3-mth supply by mail for a couple of my prescrips and see how I like it. It’s a little cheaper, but I do like my pharmacists.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Yeah…I was thinking the other day…if the economy collapsed and we had to go back to the dark ages….what I’d miss most would be my crazy pills and my tweezers!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
As Martha Stewart would say, “Zoloft…it’s a good thing.”
July 8th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
There are good reasons to establish a relationship with a pharmacist, but sometimes it feels like an invasion of your privacy.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’ve never had a close relationship with a pharmacist. Can’t imagine such a thing.
I think since the advent of pharmacies in groceries and big box discount stores, most people don’t.