The US has increasingly
turned to generic drugs as a key tool in constraining its outlandish health
care costs. However, are these drugs as safe and effective as brand name
medications? The Supreme Court apparently thinks so since in a recent decision
(Mutual Pharmaceutical co. v. Bartlett) it ruled that makers of
generic drugs cannot be sued under state law for adverse reactions to their
products. The underlying concept is that since the original branded drug has
been approved by the FDA and since the generic manufacturer is providing a
product that is ‘equivalent’ to the original drug it cannot be held responsible
for harm caused by the drug.
Generic
drugs now account for 80% of prescriptions and are often 80-90% less expensive
than the original branded drug (1).
Generics entered the US market under the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act that
provides a rapid approval process (Abbreviated New Drug Application, ANDA) that
is far less demanding than the process for approval of the original drug. The
generic has to demonstrate ‘bioequivalence’ which is usually interpreted as
attaining comparable blood levels to the original drug. However, it is
important to realize that the FDA essentially depends on the generic drug
producers to provide the data used in the evaluation. Currently the FDA lacks
the resources to extensively test all submitted drugs or to inspect all of the
factories that produce these agents. Thus, if a generic drug company
manipulates the data submitted for approval, or if its manufacturing practices
deviate from accepted standards, these problems may not be discovered for a
long time. This may be particularly a problem with foreign generic producers,
who now account for a substantial share of the US market, but whose operations
are difficult for the FDA to monitor. There is a long history of issues with
generic drugs due to the lack of efficacy because of insufficient or degraded
active ingredient or due to the presence of harmful contaminants. An especially
egregious situation involved Ranbaxy Laboratories, an Indian firm that is one
of the largest generic manufacturers. Over a period of decades Ranbaxy engaged
in outright fraud to obtain approval for its drugs both in the US and
especially in many less developed countries with weak pharmaceutical
regulations (2).
In
this light the Mutual decision seems very problematic. One of the key
constraints that keep pharmaceutical companies on the straight and narrow is
the fear of litigation. Thus the Supreme Court seems to be opening the door to
allowing generic manufacturers to cut back on monitoring the quality of their
products and their manufacturing processes. Inevitably this will have harmful
effects on patients.