§ 24. Mr. Whitakerasked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the approximate saving last year to the National Health Service if doctors had prescribed non-proprietary drugs, including paracetamol, instead of their proprietary equivalents; and what steps are being taken to encourage the use of approved names where they are cheaper than branded equivalents.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonThe maximum theoretical saving is estimated at between £800,000 and £900,000 in 1966. Doctors' attention has been drawn on a number of occasions to the advantages of prescribing by approved name where appropriate, and comparative costs are illustrated in the form of coloured charts, which are being sent to doctors from time to time. My regional medical officers also discuss this point during visits to doctors.
§ Mr. WhitakerAs the National Health Service has now been milked of millions of pounds, unnecessarily, over the past years by this method, will my right hon. Friend take the same course as the President of the Board and tell the proprietary companies that unless they reduce their profits, he will introduce legislation to make non-proprietary drugs essential?
§ Mr. RobinsonMost of what my hon. Friend has said in his supplementary is relevant to the consideration of the Sainsbury Committee. I would remind him that there is the voluntary price regulation scheme, in which we negotiate the price of a number of drugs with the manufacturers.
§ Mr. BraineWhy does the Minister dodge this issue? Can he not confirm that there are only very few branded pharmaceuticals for which there are non-branded products? Is he aware that the branded 1032 product is more extensively used overseas than it is in Britain, and that this is a direct attack upon the export potential of the drug industry?
§ Mr. RobinsonI did not interpret my hon. Friend's Question or his supplementary in that light. My hon. Friend is rightly concerned with economy in prescribing under the National Health Service.