Pharmaceutical care signifies a shift of practice in pharmacy from being drug product-oriented to the one that is patient-oriented to achieve definite outcomes that improves patients’ quality of life. In order to achieve pharmaceutical care, pharmacists have to assume the role of caregiver, communicator, decision-maker, teacher, researcher, life-long learner, leader, and manager, which will help him to provide individualized care. As the patients visit community pharmacists more often, they can play a major role in providing individual care to the patients especially in the management of chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Community pharmacists have to upgrade their expertise in drug product orientation to that of clinical orientation to provide patient oriented care. Hence pharmacists have a larger role to play in managing NCDs which are rapidly increasing in India.
Objective: Even though the generic medicines are considered to be a cheaper option compared to the branded medicines in India, there is a need to study the price disparity among the generic medicines. Hence, the present study aims to evaluate the price disparity in generic medicines under Government Scheme in India.
Methods:It was found that there were 101 generic medicines approved at a fixed price for procurement under the Central Government Health Services scheme. The prices of these medicines were searched for their availability as well as for current price in Bureau of Pharma PSUs of India (under Jan Aushadhi scheme) website.
Results:The major category of the generic medicine were antibiotics (53.45%) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (10.89%) and cardiovascular (6.93%) drugs. It was evident from the result obtained by comparing the prices across categories that there were both positive and negative deviations.
Conclusion:It was very much evident from the results of the mean of differences that even though fixed price contracts being in place, there is a price disparity in the generic drug prices seen under Government Scheme.
As payers decision makers increasingly become primary gatekeepers for access to novel therapies, pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device manufacturers strive to fulfill the evidentiary requests of the pharmacy benefit managers and plan medical directors. This study attempts to gather information to inform manufacturers on the need and rationale behind the payers' requests of head-to-head controlled studies. METHODS: We interviewed 11 medical directors (MD) and 2 pharmacy directors (PD) of commercial health insurance plans; 4 pharmacy benefit managers (PBM); and 2 MD of Medicaid programs. The interviews focused on understanding product coverage decision making and formulary placement. The interviewers followed a discussion guide, but encouraged deeper conversation when appropriate. The interviews were carried out in the summer of 2012 and beginning of 2013. RESULTS: Seven out of 13 (54%) medical directors spontaneously mentioned the need for direct comparison data in clinical trials to ensure adequate decision making. Conversely, only one PD out of the PBMs and PDs even mentioned comparison data and that was in the context of trying to understand the clinical trial design. Two MDs went on to further to state that if the head-to-head data showed increased efficacy that a price premium would be appropriate. Another MD stated that the head-to-head data may assist in formulary placement decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Payers will continue to demand head-to-head studies as long as these studies are seen as the mechanism to address their questions. By fostering a richer dialogue with payers to explore other mechanisms for gathering the comparative data, manufacturers may be able to satisfy the payers' needs with less risky and more relevant study designs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.