[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.203.245.76. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Table 1.  
Physicians’ Perceptions About Generic Drugsa
Physicians’ Perceptions About Generic Drugsa
Table 2.  
Physicians’ Prescribing Practices Related to Generic Drugs
Physicians’ Prescribing Practices Related to Generic Drugs
1.
Gagne  JJ, Choudhry  NK, Kesselheim  AS,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name statins on patient outcomes: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):400-407.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Shrank  WH, Liberman  JN, Fischer  MA, Girdish  C, Brennan  TA, Choudhry  NK.  Physician perceptions about generic drugs.  Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(1):31-38.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Ross  JS, Kesselheim  AS.  FDA policy and cardiovascular medicine.  Circulation. 2015;132(12):1136-1145.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Shrank  WH, Liberman  JN, Fischer  MA,  et al.  The consequences of requesting “dispense as written.”  Am J Med. 2011;124(4):309-317.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Brown  LD, Cai  TT, DasGupta  A.  Interval estimation for a binomial proportion.  Stat Sci. 2001;16(2):101-133.Google Scholar
Research Letter
June 2016

Prevalence and Predictors of Generic Drug Skepticism Among Physicians: Results of a National Survey

Author Affiliations
  • 1Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 3American Board of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • 4Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
 

Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):845-847. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1688

Generic drugs are low-cost, therapeutically equivalent versions of brand-name drugs. Use of generic drugs increases patient adherence and improves health outcomes.1 However, a 2009 survey of physicians showed that 23% disagreed that generic drugs were as effective as brand-name drugs and 50% reported quality concerns, leading more than one-quarter not to recommend generic drugs as first-line therapy.2

Because generic drugs now make up more than 85% of prescriptions,3 we reassessed physicians’ perceptions and determined how professional or demographic characteristics predict physicians’ support of generic drug prescribing.

Methods

From a master list of American Board of Internal Medicine diplomates, we randomly selected 300 clinically active internists and 900 specialists in endocrinology, hematology, and infectious diseases (52 excluded for lacking contact information). We emailed the survey link ($50 honoraria), with nonresponders receiving 2 reminders, a mailed version, and a final email reminder (the study was approved by Brigham and Women’s Hospital Institutional Review Board with an authorization agreement from the US Food and Drug Administration Research Involving Human Subjects Committee). Consent was implied based on reading the survey goals and participating. Using 5-point Likert scales, we measured respondents’ perceptions of generic drugs and how they last learned about a newly available generic drug.

Our first outcome variable was generic skepticism, defined as answering neutral or negative to whether generic drugs were as safe and effective as brand-name drugs, or answering neutral or positive to whether generic drugs cause more adverse effects. In sensitivity analyses, we excluded neutral responses. The second outcome variable was self-reported “brand-name–only” prescribing more than 5% of the time.4

We assessed response variations among demographic and practice characteristics, using Pearson χ2 test and 2-sample t tests. The Wilson method identified confidence intervals for proportions5 and logistic regression estimated adjusted associations (Stata, version 13.1; StataCorp).

Results

Among 718 respondents (62.3% response rate), the mean (SD) age was 46 (10) years, 54% (374 of 687) were male, 61% (387 of 639) trained at US medical schools, and 58% (393 of 675) were white. Nonrespondents had a mean (SD) age of 49 (11) years, and 57% (293 of 510) were male.

Generic drugs were widely favored: 638 respondents (89% [95% CI, 86%-91%]) perceived them as effective and 653 (91% [95% CI, 89%-93%]) perceived them to be as safe as their brand-name counterparts, while 523 (73% [95% CI, 70%-76%]) agreed that they do not cause more adverse effects and 500 (70% [95% CI, 66%-73%]) preferred prescribing generic over brand-name drugs (Table 1).

Generic skeptics (32% of sample [227 of 718]) showed no significant variation in demographic or practice characteristics. Approximately half “sometimes,” “rarely,” or “never” knew when generic drugs became available, with 155 (22% [95% CI, 19%-25%]) last learning about generic availability from pharmaceutical representatives (Table 2), a connection significantly associated with generic skepticism (41% [63 of 155] vs 29% [164 of 563]; P = .006).

Approximately 35% reported brand-name-only prescribing more than 5% of the time, with higher rates among physicians who last learned about generic drugs from pharmaceutical representatives (51% [79 of 155] vs 30% [170 of 561]; P < .001), non-US medical school graduates (39% [98 of 252] vs 31% [121 of 387]; P = .047), specialists vs internists (39% [211 of 547] vs 23% [34 of 145]; P = .001), and respondents spending more than 80% of time in patient care (39% [148 of 376] vs 27% [73 of 267]; P = .002).

After restricting the analytic data set to the 612 physicians with complete demographic and practice variables (except type) and adjusting for these variables, learning about availability of a generic drug from a pharmaceutical representative continued its positive association with higher brand-name–only prescribing (47% vs 30%; P < .001), but not with generic skepticism (35% vs 30%; P = .26). Excluding neutral responses from the skepticism definition reduced the proportion to 15% (108 of 718) but affected none of the comparisons.

Discussion

These results suggest an overall shift in the perceptions of board-certified internal medicine physicians and certain specialists about generic drugs toward greater confidence in their quality and safety. Still, generic skepticism remains common, particularly among physicians who reported pharmaceutical sales representatives as sources of the last times they learned about generic drugs becoming available. While several tests of significance were conducted—increasing the likelihood that at least 1 significant result may be a false positive—our data suggest that limiting interactions with pharmaceutical marketing and directed educational outreach could help ensure that generic drug prescribing remains widespread for the benefit of patients and to help slow the rate of increase of health care costs.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 1620 Tremont St, Ste 3030, Boston, MA 02120 (akesselheim@partners.org).

Published Online: May 9, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1688.

Author Contributions: Dr Kesselheim had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Kesselheim, Gagne, Campbell.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kesselheim.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Gagne, Eddings, Franklin.

Obtained funding: Kesselheim, Gagne, Campbell.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Gagne, Ross, Fulchino.

Study supervision: Kesselheim, Franklin.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by a grant (U01FD004856) from the US Food and Drug Administration Office of Generic Drugs.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder provided comments on an earlier draft and had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; approval of the final manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Gagne  JJ, Choudhry  NK, Kesselheim  AS,  et al.  Comparative effectiveness of generic and brand-name statins on patient outcomes: a cohort study.  Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):400-407.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Shrank  WH, Liberman  JN, Fischer  MA, Girdish  C, Brennan  TA, Choudhry  NK.  Physician perceptions about generic drugs.  Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(1):31-38.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Ross  JS, Kesselheim  AS.  FDA policy and cardiovascular medicine.  Circulation. 2015;132(12):1136-1145.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Shrank  WH, Liberman  JN, Fischer  MA,  et al.  The consequences of requesting “dispense as written.”  Am J Med. 2011;124(4):309-317.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Brown  LD, Cai  TT, DasGupta  A.  Interval estimation for a binomial proportion.  Stat Sci. 2001;16(2):101-133.Google Scholar
×