The troubled Development decree managed to get through while maintaining one of the most controversial points amid the onslaught of medical and pharmaceutical lobbies: the mandatory indication of the active ingredient contained in medicines prescribed by the doctor instead of the brand linked to the patent (expired or not).
To tell the truth, the last formulation of the text is a little softer, providing for the obligatory nature of the mention of the active ingredient but giving the doctor the possibility to also write the name of the brand next to the aforementioned ingredient, as an "optional" advice to the patient and the pharmacist.
The terms of the controversy are known: according to the government, prescribing the active ingredient rather than the more expensive branded drug reduces the health expenditure of the State and of families towards the pharmaceutical industry. The generic costs less and the indication in the prescription - while not preventing the consumption of the branded drug - makes the generic the customary option, relegating the brand to an exception. The opposite of what happens today.
According to the pharmaceutical companies (and we have to understand them) and many doctors (here we understand less) this is actually a false problem, as already today the national health service only reimburses the value of the generic drug while the difference with the branded drug is paid by the citizen. So why insist on the obligatory mention of the generic (e.g. paracetamol) in the recipe (instead of Tachipirina)? If the expenditure for the State is the same?
It's a valid point, in form.
