$2.7m 'aid' in generic pill push

GENERIC drug-makers showered pharmacists with movie tickets, computer software or benefits worth $2.7 million last year.

GENERIC drug-makers showered pharmacists with movie tickets, computer software or equipment and other benefits worth $2.7 million last year, triggering concerns that hidden financial deals are deciding what pills patients receive.

The first report on the benefits that generic companies paid, other than through price discounting, shows that five out of the industry's six companies provided such benefits.

In one of the disclosures, Hospira -- a leading supplier of generic injectable drugs -- revealed it paid $874,006 to a number of unnamed hospitals to help provide nurses qualified to care for patients with mental or movement disorders. The declaration insists the hospitals "have absolutely no obligation to prescribe" the drugs in question, clozapine and apomorphine.

Another company, Apotex, paid $410,154 to pharmacists last year for a range of benefits, including vouchers and movie tickets, and "software tools designed to increase generic substitution" -- meaning they would help pharmacists to replace branded medicine a doctor had prescribed for a patient with a cheaper but chemically identical generic product.

The report is the first to be released under the terms of the new self-regulatory code of conduct drawn up by the industry's peak body, the Generic Medicines Industry Association, which came into effect last December.

The findings came under immediate criticism from the peak patients' body, the Consumers Health Forum, which says the code contains too little detail and many benefits provided by the companies raised concerns.

CHF executive director Carol Bennett said elderly patients in particular risked being confused if they were unexpectedly switched from one brand of drug to another, and there was "definitely the potential for misadventure".

"These figures underline the need for the industry to be more accountable to the public about what incentives it puts in place," Ms Bennett said.

"Consumers really want to know what's behind the decisions healthcare professionals make about their treatment. If there's a perception that decisions are being made for reasons other than their health needs, there's an onus on the sponsors of those drugs to provide more detail about the incentives."

A spokesman for Hospira rejected the concerns, saying the drugs involved required mandatory blood tests and follow-up, and the nurses were provided to enable the best clinical care: "It's not bribery -- this nursing provision is given to make sure the drugs we are responsible for . . . are used properly and correctly."

GMIA chief executive Kate Lynch rejected the CHF's criticisms, saying the promotional activity of its members was "targeted to encourage the pharmacist to switch from one brand of a medicine to another brand".

Given the drugs were identical, this could not harm patients, she said. Pharmacists were trained to discuss the issue with patients.

Pharmacists have been allowed to substitute a different brand of the same medicine, with the patient's consent, since 1994. The federal government has been trying to encourage greater use of generic drugs to control costs.