The Department of Health and Social Security reports that brand-name drug prescriptions account for most of the cost to the National Health Service (NHS). Using generic drugs for commonly used medicines like phenylbutazone, imipramine, tetracycline, and paracetamol could lead to significant savings. While estimates of potential savings may be misleading, the Department does not attempt to calculate them. Instead, it provides factual data for professional discussion. Prescribing by brand name fixes the cost of the drug, while prescribing by generic name allows the pharmacist to choose the most cost-effective option. Figures show that brand-name prescriptions accounted for a large portion of prescriptions in the past, with brand-name drugs making up 64% in 1961 and 78% in 1971. The net ingredient cost of brand-name drugs was also significantly higher, accounting for 87.8% of total costs in 1961 and 90.8% in 1971. The cost of prescribing in England increased from over £30m in 1949 to approximately £180m in 1970. Figures show that the cost of brand-name prescriptions rose sharply, while the cost of non-branded prescriptions increased only slightly. For example, in 1967, the total net ingredient cost of brand-name prescriptions was £84,540,000, while the cost of non-branded prescriptions increased by only £1,770,000 over the same period. The use of generic drugs could save millions annually. For example, if all phenylbutazone prescriptions in 1972 had been generic, the cost would have been £1.8 million less per year. Similar savings are possible for imipramine and paracetamol. For tetracycline, prescribing by generic name would have reduced costs by more than half. The Department of Health and Social Security emphasizes that while there are differences between the figures presented, the overall trend shows that generic prescribing can lead to significant cost savings. The data provided is intended to inform professional discussions and highlight the potential benefits of generic drug use.The Department of Health and Social Security reports that brand-name drug prescriptions account for most of the cost to the National Health Service (NHS). Using generic drugs for commonly used medicines like phenylbutazone, imipramine, tetracycline, and paracetamol could lead to significant savings. While estimates of potential savings may be misleading, the Department does not attempt to calculate them. Instead, it provides factual data for professional discussion. Prescribing by brand name fixes the cost of the drug, while prescribing by generic name allows the pharmacist to choose the most cost-effective option. Figures show that brand-name prescriptions accounted for a large portion of prescriptions in the past, with brand-name drugs making up 64% in 1961 and 78% in 1971. The net ingredient cost of brand-name drugs was also significantly higher, accounting for 87.8% of total costs in 1961 and 90.8% in 1971. The cost of prescribing in England increased from over £30m in 1949 to approximately £180m in 1970. Figures show that the cost of brand-name prescriptions rose sharply, while the cost of non-branded prescriptions increased only slightly. For example, in 1967, the total net ingredient cost of brand-name prescriptions was £84,540,000, while the cost of non-branded prescriptions increased by only £1,770,000 over the same period. The use of generic drugs could save millions annually. For example, if all phenylbutazone prescriptions in 1972 had been generic, the cost would have been £1.8 million less per year. Similar savings are possible for imipramine and paracetamol. For tetracycline, prescribing by generic name would have reduced costs by more than half. The Department of Health and Social Security emphasizes that while there are differences between the figures presented, the overall trend shows that generic prescribing can lead to significant cost savings. The data provided is intended to inform professional discussions and highlight the potential benefits of generic drug use.