If you survey pharmacists - who generally understand drugs, how they work, and how they’re made - you’ll find that they, more than any other profession, eschew brand-name products, and almost always go for generic. There’s really nothing magical about that bottle of twenty aspirins that cost more three times as much as the 500-pill bottle from Costco.
Start a new habit: never by any dish washing liquid that’s advertised on TV (so you don’t pay for all those frikkin’ ads) unless it’s cheaper than generic. Because you have your hands in that soapy water for a half-hour at a time, dish washing liquid is a really, really, mild detergent and safe for all sorts of other uses. Next, use that dish washing liquid instead of that expensive liquid detergent (you know the one) to wash your woolens.
Rinse, repeat… This’ll become easier as you keep doing this for other products.
/ In case you’re not aware: there’s no need at all to ‘rinse and repeat’ when shampooing your hair. It’s a marketing ploy. 1) if you really need to wash twice, there’s something wrong with that shampoo, 2) really? like hand soap isn’t good enough, or how about using dish washing liquid instead?
They are also influenced by the parade of hotties who take them out to dinner, drinks and special events. Sex is strictly verboten.
The doctors insist it doesn’t influence their prescription choices. I hope it isn’t seen as a leap to say this is the same view espoused by HRC, with respect to her Wall St. speaker’s fees and her approach to policing the investment industry.
I’ve got family who live in the Westchester area and work on Wall Street.
It’s effin’ crazy. They get the $12 baby shampoo that smells just like Johnson & Johnson. Because to get anything less would just be embarrassing, y’know?
Also, did somebody say Drs. Who?
For aspirin, and likely most medicines, the generic is likely fine. I would check on the generic manufacturer though, if able. Ranbaxy and Apotex have rich histories of Warning Letters (i.e. flagrant, consistent violations) from the FDA. These are some of the biggest generic manufacturers in the world and they have some really sketchy shit going on in their facilities. Stick with Teva and Baxter, they have better GMP records.
There are also some differences between the brands. The processing of the tablets and other stuff has significant effect on the resorption and pharmacodynamics. I think the allowable range is 80-120% of the nominal. Which may have no important effect for most, but some patients can be more sensitive to these factors and for those the differences that shouldn’t matter much actually matter quite some.
What’s that line from If I had a Million Dollars? We’d take the limousine, 'cuz it costs more…
Even if the doctor prescribes a name brand, most insurance companies and most pharmacists will simply substitute the generic. I think the doctor can try to override this, I’m not sure.
Also, a few generics really aren’t the same - notably Warfarin.
I suppose now you’re going to try to tell me that big business expects to affect lawmaker behaviour by “donating” millions of dollars?
Money is protected by the first amendment now.
It’s a form of speech.
Here in Germany prescriptions with a brand name drug are normally* binding for the pharmacy, generics are handed out when an active pharmaceutical ingredient is prescribed.
* naturally with exceptions. we’re talking about German bureaucracy
The Constitution says all “men” are created equal.
How does that extend to corporate people?
Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people.
Because reasons… Money. Power. Influence.
No good reasons.
champagne was never cheap but i could pay someone to drink it for me
I doubt that they can override the prescription, but the patient will pay a higher co-payment.
Edit: sometimes the pharmacist will ask if you would prefer a generic, but I think that they have to get confirmation from the doctor before switching.
Prescription forms usually have a checkbox for “Generic OK,” allowing the substitution if checked.
Nonsense. Corporations have always been fictitious people for legal purposes, because you can sue them. The law draws a line between them and “natural” people. The big deal with Citizens United is they followed the logic that if corporations are people, they must have First Amendment rights.
I think it would be interesting next to see a corporation assert its Second Amendment rights.
Heh. Corporations were viewed as some vile compromises by the people that put them together originally. Dangerous entities that limited liability for the public good… For things like the ‘build this bridge together across this river’ corporation. They were intended to be unincorporated once their function was fulfilled.
Whatever we have now is a sort of crony capitalist hybrid of limited liability and corporate welfare backed by the power of the US Treasury.
Or… The things people worried about when corporations became a thing in the first place.
As far as corporations having second amendment rights? I once saw a gorgeous troop transport at Texas Instruments. All black. 50 caliber mounted to a swivel mount on top. That was 20 years ago… So yeah.
There’s a precident.
Anaesthesia doesn’t get new and exciting drugs very often. When it does they’re often too expensive to become part of routine practice in the public sector until the price comes down significantly (Merck, I’m thinking of Sugammadex, hint, hint). Plus, in New Zealand, Pharmac has pretty tight control over who our drug suppliers are. So no experience of a “parade of hotties” trying to persuade me to use their wares.
I’m torn over whether this is a good thing or a bad thing …
[Edit: For those with no sense of humour —the last paragraph is a joke].