Karim S S, Pillai G, Ziqubu-Page T T, Cassimjee M H, Morar M S
Centre for Epidemiological Research in Southern Africa, Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa.
Health Policy Plan. 1996 Jun;11(2):198-205. doi: 10.1093/heapol/11.2.198.
Generic prescribing and generic substitution are mechanisms for reducing the cost of drugs. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which generic prescribing by private medical practitioners and generic substitution by private pharmacists is practised in South Africa and to estimate the potential savings from these two practices. Prescriptions from 10 pharmacists were collected on four randomly selected days. Computer printouts of all the prescriptions dispensed on these four days together with the original doctor's prescription were priced using a commercially available pharmacy dispensing computer package. A total of 1570 prescriptions with a total number of 4086 items were reviewed. Of the total prescriptions, 45.7% had at least one item for which there was a generic equivalent. Of the 961 drugs which had generic equivalents, 202 (21 %) were prescribed using the generic name of the drug. Only 0.3% of prescribers prohibited generic substitution. The cost of the prescription as dispensed was 1.4% (mean cost: R116.19 vs R117.84) below that of the original doctor's prescriptions, indicating the marginal benefit from the current low substitution rate of 13.9% by pharmacists. About 6.8% of the cost of the original doctor's prescriptions (mean cost: R117.84) could have been saved if total generic substitution (mean cost: R109.65) was practised. The cost of the prescriptions with only brand name items (mean cost: R120.49) would have been 9.9% higher than if generic drugs were used. Current restrictive prescribing and dispensing practices result in marginal cost savings from generic prescribing and generic substitution. Both these practices have a potential to reduce drug costs, if actively encouraged and practised to maximum capacity. It is noteworthy, however, that the potential savings from generic prescribing and substitution are at most 9.9% in the absence of any changes in types of drugs prescribed.
通用名开药和通用名替换是降低药品成本的机制。本研究的目的是评估南非私人执业医生的通用名开药和私人药剂师的通用名替换的实施程度,并估计这两种做法可能节省的费用。在四个随机选择的日子里收集了10名药剂师的处方。使用市售的药房配药计算机软件包对这四天配发的所有处方的计算机打印件以及原始医生处方进行定价。共审查了1570张处方,涉及4086项药品。在所有处方中,45.7%至少有一项有通用等效物。在961种有通用等效物的药品中,202种(21%)使用药品通用名开具。只有0.3%的开处方者禁止通用名替换。配发处方的成本比原始医生处方低1.4%(平均成本:116.9兰特对117.84兰特),这表明目前药剂师13.9%的低替换率带来的边际效益。如果实行完全通用名替换(平均成本:109.65兰特),原始医生处方成本的约6.8%(平均成本:117.84兰特)本可节省。仅含品牌名药品的处方成本(平均成本:120.49兰特)比使用通用名药品时高9.9%。目前严格的开药和配药做法使通用名开药和通用名替换节省的成本微不足道。如果积极鼓励并充分实施这两种做法,它们都有可能降低药品成本。然而,值得注意的是,在不开具药品类型发生任何变化的情况下,通用名开药和替换可能节省的成本最多为9.9%。