A data-driven quality-score system for rating drug products and its implications for the health care industry.

The quality of drug products in the United States has been a matter of growing concern. Buyers and payers of pharmaceuticals have limited insight into measures of drug-product quality. Therefore, a quality-score system driven by data collection is proposed to differentiate between the qualities of drug products produced by different manufacturers. The quality scores derived using this proposed system would be based upon public regulatory data and independently-derived chemical data. A workflow for integrating the system into procurement decisions within health care organizations is also suggested. The implementation of such a quality-score system would benefit health care organizations by including the consideration of the quality of products while also considering price as a part of the drug procurement process. Such a system would also benefit the U.S. health care industry by bringing accountability and transparency into the drug supply chain and incentivizing manufacturers to place an increased emphasis on the quality and safety of their drug products.

Generics Substitution, Bioequivalence Standards, and International Oversight: Complex Issues Facing the FDA.

The regulations for assessing the quality of generic drugs and their bioequivalence to innovator products are outdated and need to be substantially modernized. There are multiple reasons why these changes are needed, including: (i) the regulations remain largely unchanged since the passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984; (ii) medication therapies have become substantially more complex over the three decades since the passage of the Act; (iii) a switch from an innovator drug to a generic drug, or switching from one generic to another, is not a benign process - there is substantial clinical professional judgment involved and in some instances these decisions should be better informed; and (iv) pharmaceutical ingredients for finished products, whether innovator or generic, are from multiple sources of supply, adding variability in their production, and which may not be accounted for in specification tolerances. When these elements are viewed together, they clearly suggest that more transparency of responsible manufacturers in product labels and updated standards for bioequivalence are required.

Let patients help with diagnosis.

Diagnostic errors are common and have seemed intractable for decades. Although time pressure is often cited as a contributor to this problem, overconfidence on the part of the diagnostician may also play a role. Successful strategies for reducing error in the diagnostic process should include patients and families in innovative ways. Changing the existing paradigm of patients responding passively to one of patients participating actively has the potential to assist in achieving greater diagnostic accuracy. Providers should welcome patients' online research into their symptoms, succinct summaries of their course of illness and questions about the differential diagnoses that might be applicable. Systematic methods for following up after the initial diagnosis are essential for verifying accuracy as well as providing excellent patient care.