(B5) New York Soon, Oklahoma law may give you the chance to test the equality of generic medicines for yourself. The heart medicine was all seemingly the same it had the And now everyone's witing to admit that yes this trs not to late for us here in Oklahoma We've already seen one tragic instance where all genere The fact is, the government doesn't even require that all Now could anyone even propose presenetian drug No supporter of prescription drug substitution has yet As we said, there's no law that says we have to have Call this number for more information If you re already Call 332-4116 Now! -35 When you're and the Evening News, Ada, Oklahoma. Fublished in the News-Star, Shawnee, Oklahoma, You trust a politician enough to vote for him Does that mean you trust him enough to When he decided that's what it means, it's time Like now. Some of them have decided they know enough No kidding The proposed law involves prescription drug And since all drugs with the same chemical We're here to tell you. And if you value your "Chemically equal does not, REPEAT NOT. And the inequalities that exist Can But you Like the heart patients in Can maim FOU Like the man in This campaign to Stop Prescription Drug Substitution Legislation is sponsored by Can make you a whole lot sicker: Like the Second, the drugs won't be cheaper Despite You sent some of these people to Oklahoma Call this number for more information on the Call The alternative is enough Medicine the Pontotoc Medical Society and the Ada Pharmacists Association. You trust a politician enough to vote for him. Does that Oklahoma, it's time to get worried. In eleven of our sister states, the politicians have decided they're Broadcast over radio stations KGFF, Shawnee, Oklahoma, and KTEN, KEOR, and KADA, Ada, Oklahoma MARCH 1976. PRIVATE PRACTICE 15 Statement of C. Joseph Stetler Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association Before the Subcommittee on Monopoly Senate Select Committee on Small Business November 16, 1977 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am C. Joseph Stetler, President of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. With me today are Bruce J. Brennan, PMA Vice President and General Counsel; and Dr. John G. Adams, PMA Vice President, Scientific and Professional Relations. We appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on two issues which pertain to your current hearings on drug quality, competition and government procurement of drugs. The first is the so-called list of interchangeable drugs recently published by the New York Department of Health under the title "Safe, Effective and Therapeutically Equivalent Prescription Drugs". The second is the Maximum Allowable Cost regulation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The New York drug list, which was released in draft form on October 1, is intended to implement recently enacted drug substitution legislation in New York. The new law requires that all prescription forms in the state carry two instructions to the pharmacist to be executed by the prescribing physician. The first authorizes the pharmacist to substitute a product of the same chemical composition for the one prescribed. The second requires that the pharmacist fill the prescription with the specific product indicated. The law requires that whenever authorized, a substitution must be made if the substitute product appears on a special list developed by the New York Department of Health. This list of allegedly equivalent drug products was not prepared by the Food and Drug Administration or by experts in medicine or pharmacology. It was developed under no scientific or research protocol. It originated in the New York Office of Legislative Oversight and Analysis and is nothing more than a compilation of data from FDA files. This list of products of firms holding approved New Drug Applications or Abbreviated New Drug Applications is now being promoted as a definitive, scientifically accurate statement on therapeutic equivalence as if it were a revelation. In fact, the public really has no more assurance about product equivalence now than it did without such a list. The identity of holders of NDAs and ANDAs for the products shown has been a matter of public record for years. We think it is extremely important that the public and legislators understand that significantly different criteria are applied among companies and among products in the course of approving NDAs or ANDAS. FDA approval is not, and was never intended to be a permanent guarantee of safety and efficacy. Nor is such approval a guarantee that the product is interchangeable with any other chemically similar drug or that it is therapeutically equivalent to it. New York officials, as well as certain Food and Drug Administration employees, have attempted to deal with the difficult issue of interchangeability by offering a list of products, as a group, which present no known problems. Indeed, the statements by FDA and New York officials have to be read very carefully. They say that FDA has not yet heard about any medical difficulties arising from the indiscriminate substitution of one of these products for another. The fact is, FDA is really not looking for any such problems, and doesn't know whether any exist or not. |