What my colleague Riccardo said is undoubtedly shared by the many colleagues with whom I have had the opportunity to deal with these days and in the "small" reality of the irrefutable facts (after all, patients have to pay the difference even between generic and generic if the price is not exactly aligned). Considering that our interlocutors are not completely inexperienced (far from it!!) I am instead more perplexed that, in the long term, there is no convenience for the NHS, i.e. that there is no strategy at the basis of this reasoning which otherwise would not explain a rule which, together with many other proposals within the "Balduzzi decree" (some of which, such as the revision of the Aifa handbook, I learn today, postponed coincidentally by 6 months) puts thousands of jobs at risk in the pharmaceutical industry (with consequent high social costs for the State itself and consequently imaginable repercussions for the infamous GDP which by now unexpectedly drives our society).
In a nutshell, this is my personal conviction: let's bear in mind that in Europe, and this has been constantly reiterated for a long time, the market share of generics is clearly higher than in Italy and, by virtue of this, the their price at least three times lower. Foresti himself has always justified the higher price of generic drugs marketed in Italy with their low market penetration. Here, I believe that these rules go in the direction of encouraging a greater appreciation of these drugs which will inevitably be followed by their price lowering to European levels (and the tools to "force this decision" will be there: for example those who do not comply, after a period of open competition of 6 months, coincidentally, for the conquest of the market it could be taken off the formulary).
At this point the circle will be closed with all due respect to everyone without distinction, including brands and generics.
A warm greeting
SB
Florence
