Where I live doctors are only allowed to give prescriptions for the generic chemical compound and are forbidden to give prescriptions for specific brands. They may suggest the use of a particular brand if they know of a benefit over others but the one who decides is the patient.
Of course this is not very useful when the drug is patented or if there is only one laboratory producing it, but none the less it seems like a sane default. And this is in a private healthcare system, it is surprising that the NHS doesn't have a rule like this when is their taxpayer's money being used.
I don't understand their arguments. Do they have proof that their licensed drugs are safer and/or more effective than the replacement?<p>The article says "In January, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded that Avastin was as safe and effective as the two licensed drugs, Lucentis and Eylea."<p>If they have no proof, they should stfu.
This debate has happened in the US for many years. Here is a wsj article from 2011 <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704463804576291572903925578" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704463804576291...</a>