# E-DRUG: Mandatory generic prescribing vs trade mark rights **URL:** \ **Category:** e-drug\ **Created:** [October 17, 1996, 10:33am UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-mandatory-generic-prescribing-vs-trade-mark-rights/212 "1996-10-17T10:33:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Guttorm\_Folkedal1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7c8e57/32.png) [@Guttorm\_Folkedal1](https://talk.edrugplus.org/u/Guttorm_Folkedal1)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 1996, 10:33am UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-mandatory-generic-prescribing-vs-trade-mark-rights/212/1 "1996-10-17T10:33:41Z")
Dear E-druggers, Regarding the ongoing debate on mandatory generic prescribing vs trade mark rights: I have recently been working as a cooperant/senior pharmacist for nearly 3 years in Mozambique. I was linked to the MOH and MEDIMOC - the parastatal in charge for drug imports to the public - as well as the private sector. Generic prescribing has been mandatory by legislation and working practice in Mozambique for nearly 20 years. It is still incorporated in the new drug legislation (Lei dos Medicamentos) that is about to be approved these days. No lawsuits have been received till now (maybe the setting is too small, being brought to court for violating trade mark rights). Anyway - practice shows several important advantages with the system in Mozambique: - Drug Prices. Even in such a small market (USD 20 million/year) prices were evaluated to be favourable in comparison to other countries in a GATT survey from 1992. A diminished number of items and elevated tendering volume for each item contributes to this tendency - more drugs for less money. - Rational Drug Use. As done in several developing countries, the INRUD indicators have been reviewed in Mozambique public health facilities (Maputo province). 85% of the 600 patients that was interviewed, knew how to take their drugs in a setting with extreme poverty and high illiteracy. 98,5% of all drugs were prescribed and dispensed as generics. I do not know any brand-name market that has proven a similar patient knowlegde. The Generic setting in Mozambique is so simple that all health care providers may instruct patient to have good knowlegde of their drugs - they even remember the INN-names ! All this will obviously contribute to elevated patient compliance. Being a developed country, Norway is also considering generic prescribing/substitution. The patients have the rights to organise substitution - cooperating with a pharmacist. Only 1 out of 10 new drugs entering the market are considered to represent a real improvement (SCRIP I-95). The other drugs (that may be called "me-too drugs") are in general terms just elevating health expenditures, and in addition contribute to a higher grade of confusion amongst perscribers, nurses and patients. These facts are now driving several Norwegian hospitals to give preference to generic names in their drug lists. In summary - I hope that brand names/branded generics will loose the current right to confuse drug markets in any country. I think Richard puts forward a very sound and mild strategy in the setting. And I do hope that Eberhard will change his mind - not only representing the interests of brand name representatives. It is important to support a generic strategy. I do not expect this to end the debate. Regards, Guttorm Folkedal e-mail: saihroga@online.no