GPhA supports initiatives and policies in states that encourage the use of safe, effective and affordable generic versions of brand name prescription drugs. GPhA opposes all attempts to carve out certain categories of drugs from generic substitution practices. As state legislatures look for ways to rein in health care costs, it is critical for lawmakers take full advantage of FDA-approved generic prescription drugs, which have produced more that $1 trillion in savings to state and federal health care programs over the past decade.
- State legislators and policymakers need to let the medical evidence – not the lobbying of interests that are opposed to generics – guide their actions in setting health care policies.
- Access to lower cost generics can improve patient compliance with their doctor's orders, thereby minimizing potential adverse health outcomes resulting from poor adherence to important medications.
- The term "carve-out" refers to the policy of removing a specific therapeutic class of drugs from standard state generic substitution laws. Carve-out laws undermine cost-saving objectives by hindering usage of more affordable medications.
- There is no scientific or medical evidence to support restricting the substitution of FDA-approved generic equivalents for their brand-name counterpart drugs
- The American Medical Association (AMA) and many other medical and scientific groups have stated that generic substitution is clinically appropriate, effective and safe.
- Doctors have the ultimate authority to decide whether generic substitution is appropriate for their patients.
GPhA actively seeks opportunities to partner with states to develop materials to support generic use and patient acceptance and understanding of generic drugs. Information for developing materials including brochures, frequently asked questions, lists of approved generics, tips for managing medicines, guidelines for generic access, generic savings programs, and more are available from GPhA.