Private Insurers Implementing Policies Making Generic Substitution Mandatory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two of Canada's major private insurers are borrowing a page from their public-sector counterparts, by implementing mandatory generic substitution for employer drug plans. In the past few months, both Sun Life Financial and Great West Life have implemented new rules on reimbursement in a bid to contain drug payment costs. The changes are expected to have a significant impact; together, the 2 insurance companies administer about half of Canada's private health plans. In an update on group benefits issued April 2012, Sun Life called its new policy “the next step in generic substitution” — aimed at reducing costs for clients and ensuring long-term drug plan sustainability. It stated that the average claim on brandname drugs is approximately $72, versus only $27 for generics. Under the new rules, Sun Life will reimburse only the cost of the lowest-priced equivalent drug (usually the generic version). “This means that even when a doctor writes ‘no substitution’ on the prescription, the member will be reimbursed for the lowest-priced equivalent,” the update read. Initially, the change was to apply only to new plans (effective May 1, 2012). Great West Life introduced similar changes to all new plans in December 2011 and in mid-2012, extended the policy to existing plans. It stated, “…benefits will be based on the cost of the lowest-priced interchangeable drug that has the same medicinal ingredients. A plan member can choose to pay the difference in cost and still purchase the prescribed drug.” The insurers are allowing for some exceptions; the higher-cost drug will be covered if the plan member provides medical evidence that a prescribed brand-name drug cannot be substituted. The brand-name pharmaceutical industry has expressed concern about the insurers' new policies. They argue it restricts freedom and in some cases, will force changes on patients for purely cost-containment reasons. “We believe that health care professionals, working hand-in-hand with their patients, are best positioned to make the safest, most effective treatment decisions,” says Russell Williams, president of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D). The brand-name industry appreciates the “very serious fiscal pressures facing all payers,” says Mr. Williams, while adding that “new, more scientifically advanced medicines are actually a critical tool in building a more sustainable system and productive workforce overall. In restricting access to innovative medicines, we risk impacting health care costs negatively by increasing the need for hospitalizations or more costly interventions.” The generic industry, on the other hand, has welcomed the changes. The insurance companies are responding to the growing use of reimbursement coupons for brand-name drugs, according to Jeff Connell, vice president, corporate affairs, with the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA). “These programs claim that they ‘pay the difference between the brand and the generic,’ but that's not true if the private drug plans don't have strict no-substitution policies,” he says. “The coupons are the payer of last resort, which means if the card is presented at a pharmacy and the drug plan has loose rules, the employer pays the difference.” Sun Life has said that the number of doctors writing “no substitution” on prescriptions has dramatically increased. For example, says the insurer, nosubstitution claims for Lipitor — which went off patent in 2010 — have increased 138% so far this year. This trend is directly related to the coupon incentives that many brand-name drug companies have developed, says Mr. Connell. “We congratulate Sun Life and Great West Life for putting the brakes on the costs to their clients with absolutely zero impact on patient care.”
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".