In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Sacks and colleagues1 have presented an illuminating view of state regulations that either foster or inhibit the use of generic drugs instead of brand-name products. They note that the use of generic drugs has greatly reduced the aggregate cost of drugs in the US compared with what it would have been were only brand-name drugs available. To ensure that this shift continues, more needs to be done to remove poorly designed state regulations that inhibit the use of generic drugs, while at the same time ensuring that treating physicians are aware of what formulations their patients are actually receiving. In addition, pharmacists should be protected from liability when legally substituting generic drugs for brand-name products.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Crosson FJ. Addressing the Cost of Biologic and Specialty Drugs. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(1):22–23. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3593
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: