Prescription costs

[april47]

Hi, I am from MSN but only posted a few times. I have been wanting to vent about my pet peeve for a long time. I really think that the out-of-control costs of prescription meds could be partially tamed by the pharmaceutical companies by stopping the constant TV commercials! The doctor usually prescribes what he wants to anyway and it really is the patients duty to ask questions about anything that is prescribed. It is the constant, never ending, and rushed lists of side-effects during those commercials that set my hair on end! Why do they even want to advertise that a side effect is death? We are talking millions of dollars for these useless advertisements and that cost is passed on to us

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I know one way some people keep their prescription costs down is by taking the list of available $5 or less generics (from places like Walmart) to their doctor and requesting that medications off that list be prescribed v. name brand drugs .... if applicable to their medical condition, of course.

And I know that for some insurance plans, ordering a 3-month supply from a mail-order pharmacy v. a 1-month supply from a local pharmacy is at a reduced rate.

[Deleted]

Yeah, those commercials drive me crazy. Magazines seem to depend on prescription ads for revenue, too. I do believe in the need for some prescriptions. DH is on one that's changed his life (he's got polycythemia vera and his body makes too much red blood cells). I run screaming to the Doc-in-a-Box for prednisone when I come down with poison ivy because I can't stand a week of sleepless, itchy nights.

But, I really think that prescriptions are over-used in this country for conditions that could be treated with lifestyle changes, prevention, or talk therapy. DS, for example, has ADD but used meds for only a couple of years till he and his psychogist worked out ways for him to manage it. Not every ADD case can be managed without meds, but when the insurance co-pay on Adderall is $15 but they pay $25 for a $100/hour visit with the psychologist, guess which most people choose.

The attitude that there's a pill for everything is really pushed hard by these commercials.

[phil5185]

We are talking millions of dollars for these useless advertisements and that cost is passed on to us

True - but I wonder if it is significant? Or a rounding error?

A single drug takes about 8 yrs to be invented, researched, compounded, tested for effectivity, tested for side effects - then retested on bigger samples, plus the FDA approval cycle. About $8 billion of 'front' money for a single drug before the first bottle is sold. So a little $8M advertising bill would add only 1/1000 to the price of your pills. Ie, a dime added to $100 bottle.

And a benefit of the advertising is that the drug company will sell more pills and therefore recover the $8 billion investment more quickly and then lower the costs to us - perhaps enough to offset the dime, maybe even more.

[bobbysgirl]

Phil has a point, but there is the other side of the coin as well. Drug companies will take a drug that is going off of exlusive ownership, change one insignificant volume, then apply for a new patent. There is money to be made there. Lots of it.

Unless a patient specifically asks for a generic, most doctors do prescribe a new drug because they benefit from it. Drug companies keep stats on a doctor and the number of scripts written for a drug. If he / she does not meet a quota, they are forgotten when the enormous opportunities to make money through the drug companies are handed out. Please correct me if I'm wrong amd not up to date on this info. I did retire 2 years ago.

[whoami]

I dont even know what they are advertising half the time so I wouldnt know to ask my doctor for it anyway....and no, I'm not going to waste my time looking it up either. I tune all commercials out.

[Deleted]

U.S. drug companies spend almost twice as much on marketing and promoting medications than on research and development, a new Canadian study says.

"These numbers clearly show how promotion predominates over R&D in the pharmaceutical industry, contrary to the industry's claim," the authors write in this week's peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science Medicine.

Using data from two market research companies, the University of Quebec's Marc-André Gagnon and York University's Joel Lexchin found U.S. drug companies spent $57.5 billion US on promotional activities in 2004 compared with $31.5 billion on research and development.



Read more: www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/01/03/drugs.html#ixzz1AUq04P7b

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2011 20:07:39 GMT -5 @bobbysgirl said:

Unless a patient specifically asks for a generic, most doctors do prescribe a new drug because they benefit from it. Drug companies keep stats on a doctor and the number of scripts written for a drug. If he / she does not meet a quota, they are forgotten when the enormous opportunities to make money through the drug companies are handed out.

What opportunities? DH had one doc (one of 2 recognized experts on his disease in the US, also a prof at Johns Hopkins) tell DH that he wasn't even allowed to accept a pen bearing the name of a pharma company anymore because of potential conflicts of interest.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Unless a patient specifically asks for a generic, most doctors do prescribe a new drug because they benefit from it.

I doubt this. There is no way for doctors to benefit from prescribing particular pharmaceuticals because they are now no longer allowed to take ANYTHING from drug companies. I know that my institution now no longer even allows the drug company to leave samples to give to patients.

Personally, the last time I was given a name brand (new) drug was about 4 years ago after surgery and that was because the alternative was frequent blood tests to titrate the drug to each person.

None of my other meds are name brand - all generic - and I have never had to ask for them, they're given as a matter of course.

[april47]

Jan 9, 2011 9:06:17 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Unless a patient specifically asks for a generic, most doctors do prescribe a new drug because they benefit from it.

I doubt this. There is no way for doctors to benefit from prescribing particular pharmaceuticals because they are now no longer allowed to take ANYTHING from drug companies. I know that my institution now no longer even allows the drug company to leave samples to give to patients.

Personally, the last time I was given a name brand (new) drug was about 4 years ago after surgery and that was because the alternative was frequent blood tests to titrate the drug to each person.

None of my other meds are name brand - all generic - and I have never had to ask for them, they're given as a matter of course.

Right. This is why it is a great waste of money to spend on those absurd commercials. Money that is passed on to us. Have any of you ever walked into a doctors office and actually asked the doctor for a prescription because you saw a commercial for something you had to have because of the smiling actor on the TV screen that was miraculously "cured"?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Have any of you ever walked into a doctors office and actually asked the doctor for a prescription because you saw a commercial for something you had to have because of the smiling actor on the TV screen that was miraculously "cured"?

Actually, yes. Prior to my hip replacement, I was lookiing for a NSAID that worked and I didn't have to take it several times/day. It was about the same time that Celebrex went onto the market and was being advertized, so I asked about it.

My doctor had some samples and I was able to try it out without needing to pay for it. At the time, it was more effective for me than anything else that was on the market and I went onto it.

I didn't ask for it because I was looking for something that would miraculously cure me, I was looking for something that was more effective than what I had already tried.

[wvugurl26]

The days of doctors getting big money from pharma companies are pretty much long gone. No more pens, notepads, magnets, whatever with drug company logos on them for anyone-doctors, pharmacists, etc. Many hospitals/physicians groups have new rules that prohibit doctors from promoting drugs for big pharma and collecting those lucrative speaker fees. Finally in the next few years, all pharma companies will be required to make public the amounts they pay to physicians for services. Several drug companies already have to do this as a result of corporate integrity agreements with the federal government.
I understand drugs are expensive but as Phil said billions of dollars goes into developing a single drug. Not to mention the billions they've spent on all the ones that won't make it to the market. Drug advertising is controlled by regulations. The advertising cost is nothing compared to the development costs. With the crackdown on freebies and continuing education for doctors, I'd expect to see more advertising. Two of the big ways they get the drug name out there are under fire, they'll replace it with something.

[phil5185]

I understand drugs are expensive but as Phil said billions of dollars goes into developing a single drug. Not to mention the billions they've spent on all the ones that won't make it to the market.

I worry that we (the public) will continually whine about drug costs until Congress decides to "help us" by putting caps on drug costs, or by putting caps on drug profits. That would effectively stop drug research in its tracks.

No drug company CEO would put up $8 billion of 'front' money in hopes of inventing a new drug 8 yrs in the future if Congress threatens to take all the profit. Instead, they would convert their companies to 'pill makers', ie, they would just crank out existing pills for 5 cents each and forget new research.

Sounds backwards to me, I might get old and need a neat new magic designer pill someday - and, given the alternative, I might be very willing to pay $100 for a pill?

[formerexpat]

And a benefit of the advertising is that the drug company will sell more pills and therefore recover the $8 billion investment more quickly and then lower the costs to us - perhaps enough to offset the dime, maybe even more.

[/size]

It appears to be very beneficial with the 20% profit margins in the pharma industry. Not demonizing profits or specific margins but if profit margins are close to zero or even negative in certain countries [i.e. Canada, Germany, Spain, France, UK, Japan], then that profit margin is made entirely on the backs of the US consumer.

Perhaps our health care costs would be cheaper if we weren't indirectly subsidizing the costs of the drugs for other citizens of other countries.

[kadee]

The days of doctors getting big money from pharma companies are pretty much long gone. No more pens, notepads, magnets, whatever with drug company logos on them for anyone-doctors, pharmacists, etc. Many hospitals/physicians groups have new rules that prohibit doctors from promoting drugs for big pharma and collecting those lucrative speaker fees. Finally in the next few years, all pharma companies will be required to make public the amounts they pay to physicians for services. Several drug companies already have to do this as a result of corporate integrity agreements with the federal government.
I understand drugs are expensive but as Phil said billions of dollars goes into developing a single drug. Not to mention the billions they've spent on all the ones that won't make it to the market. Drug advertising is controlled by regulations. The advertising cost is nothing compared to the development costs. With the crackdown on freebies and continuing education for doctors, I'd expect to see more advertising. Two of the big ways they get the drug name out there are under fire, they'll replace it with something.

This is just like cheating on your taxes...where there is a will, someone will find a way! It may be a lot more difficult, but.....

And speaking of drug research....
I would much rather see some of that 8b go toward research for preventing diseases instead of something to cover up the symptoms. Ya know, preventive medicine!

[formerexpat]

Using data from two market research companies, the University of Quebec's Marc-André Gagnon and York University's Joel Lexchin found U.S. drug companies spent $57.5 billion US on promotional activities in 2004 compared with $31.5 billion on research and development.

[/size]

I already debunked this myth with you on the old YM. The $57.5 billion includes medicines that were given to doctors to GIVE to consumers. It is a huge chunk of this amount.

You can call this advertising / promotional if you'd like, but I'm sure those who needed those medicines and didn't have to pay for it appreciated this gesture.

Assuming integrity with the hippocratic oath, how could you turn on the pharma industry and say this is bad?

[wvugurl26]

This is just like cheating on your taxes...where there is a will, someone will find a way! It may be a lot more difficult, but.....

And there are consequences to cheating on taxes. Many of the big drug companies are under intense scrutiny already, its not worth it to them to leave payments off the list.

I worry that we (the public) will continually whine about drug costs until Congress decides to "help us" by putting caps on drug costs, or by putting caps on drug profits. That would effectively stop drug research in its tracks.

A very scary thought and unfortunately one I could see happening. We'd rather whine and complain about things instead of figuring out how to handle it ourselves. Too many people think the world owes them something and that everything is someone else's fault.

Perhaps our health care costs would be cheaper if we weren't indirectly subsidizing the costs of the drugs for other citizens of other countries.

We do subsidize the health care costs for many of the other countries. I don't want to see the caps and other socialist policies they have in most of the countries we are subsidizing. It does suck that other countries benefit from us but we do get cutting edge care out of it.

[formerexpat]

We do subsidize the health care costs for many of the other countries. I don't want to see the caps and other socialist policies they have in most of the countries we are subsidizing. It does suck that other countries benefit from us but we do get cutting edge care out of it.

[/size]

I wasn't advocating our country putting caps on as much as other countries being denied the ability to place socialistic caps on their medicines. Maybe we should open up a prescription drug commodity market. Pay market value or you don't get it. That would reduce the US costs overall.

I'm very much a fan of the much better care everyone in this country gets over their counterparts in other countries. We left a country specifically because of their inadequate care when my wife was pregnant.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

I would much rather see some of that 8b go toward research for preventing diseases instead of something to cover up the symptoms. Ya know, preventive medicine!

Why? Most meds deal with problems that preventative medicine can't. Want a new antibiotic that every bug isn't resistant to? Preventative medicine isn't going to do you any good. Want a new chemotherapy drug kill the cancer? Preventative medicine isn't going to do much good there either.

[Deleted]

"as Phil said billions of dollars goes into developing a single drug. Not to mention the billions they've spent on all the ones that won't make it to the market. Drug advertising is controlled by regulations. The advertising cost is nothing compared to the development costs. "

The highest totals i've seen are in the 1.3-1.4 billion per drug, and that includes paying for drugs that don't work, and has been highly questioned... given that studies are only in industry and details not released...

The fact is most 'NEW' drugs these days are just re-packaging of older drugs to keep them in patent... relatively few new compounds are actually developed...

And it is VERY lucrative for pharma not to follow the rules... they do what they know they aren't supposed to and have a patented drug pull in billions a year for a decade before a qui tam manages a federal/state suit for misconduct that represents, maybe, a years worth of profits... why would they mind? ... Until we have CONSISTENT, CRIMINAL repercussions for those who break the law and allow the law to be broken, pharma will continue to sidestep the law...

[Deleted]

Want a new chemotherapy drug kill the cancer?


Now WHY would pharma want to KILL cancer... when they make so much money TREATING it?... Same with anything else, lifestyle and life long drug therapy are very lucrative business... why would they want to CURE their market?

[Angel!]

An interesting article on the subject:

www.ipi.org/IPI/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText/F4F61FB6BB576D4086256A4F00229C21

It says the advertising is the result of a change in the healthcare system & the rising costs & not the cause of the rising costs. Also makes an argument that advertising tends to increase competion & lowers prices despite the cost of the advertising:

Every Sunday newspaper is filled with advertising flyers for department stores, office products, computers, cars, food and clothing. Yet people don’t complain they can’t afford food because all the grocery stores advertise. And does anyone really think they would be able to get a computer for less money if none of the computer manufacturers and retail outlets advertised?

A pioneering study compared the prices of eyeglasses in states that either permitted or restricted advertising for eyeglass services. Prices were about 25 percent higher where advertising was restricted or banned (and prices were highest for the least educated consumers). A later study by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) staff showed that product quality in the states without advertising was not higher despite the higher prices. Studies also found higher prices in the absence of advertising for such diverse products as gasoline, prescription drugs and legal services.

[sheilaincali]

I hadn't really given much thought to the cost of medications until last weekend. My SIL is a vet and when they were at my folks their dog got into some poison. She called the on call vet in our town to double check the dosage (since she was away from her practice). The on call vet was a friend of hers from university so she gave her the dosage. My SIL said - "don't cancel your NYE plans, I am on file at Walgreen's so I can call in the prescription".
In the end they called the friend back and asked if they could meet her at her office because the 3 day supply of this medication at Walgreen's was $495, the 3 day supply through the vet's office was $7.
Same drug- $488 difference.

[alabamagal]

I used to work for pharma company, no longer. I won't defend all their pricing policies, and I don't like advertising.

But also think about all those adds for lawyer. "Did you take xxx drug and have some side effects? You may be entitled to a large cash settlement....." Well the money that you pay for your prescription is also going to pay for the millions in settlements for every side effect, plus the lawyers commission which is used to fund those adds. The drug companies then inflate their prices just in case their are any unintended side effects and they have to pay out large settlements. In addition to complaining about the drug company adds, you should also complain about the lawyer adds, because your prescription costs are affected by them also

[kinetickid]

Jan 11, 2011 2:43:37 GMT -5 @patstab said:

My husband works overseas and he can buy most drugs across the counter, many the same we have here and way way cheaper. Also they have other ones that are even better then what we have. We are getting soaked for this stuff.

Also in some of the countries the pharmacists are well informed and can prescribe some drugs. In Paris I got a drug for a headache at a pharmacy, best stuff I ever got.

My MIL gets me Retin-A when she travels abroad, and I've purchased it in Mexico myself, too.

In US: Retin-A is at least $100/tube. Plus the cost of the dermo visit to get the prescription: $150/visit (it's not covered by insurance because it's considered cosmetic). So, $250 to get Retin-A here in America.

In Mexico: Just $20 and no need to carve out a morning from your schedule sitting in your dermo's office.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2011 14:37:27 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

But also think about all those ads for lawyer. "Did you take xxx drug and have some side effects? You may be entitled to a large cash settlement....." Well the money that you pay for your prescription is also going to pay for the millions in settlements for every side effect, plus the lawyers commission which is used to fund those ads.

Amen to that. I work for an insurance company. Large pharma companies generally have to absorb a giant "deductible" (called a Sef-Insured Retention) on these settlements before insurance kicks in. Their insurance costs are also partly based on historic losses- so in the end the pharma company is paying the $$ that go to the plaintiffs, PLUS the $$ that go to the lawyers, PLUS profit and expenses of the insurance companies. And my company doesn't even want to write pharma risks because they're so hard to price.

Which is another reason to avoid prescription drugs in the first place if you can: they have side effects. You should take them only if the benefit justifies the potential side effects. I quit taking a statin after I got raging tendinitis that was so bad sometimes I had to eat with my left hand, and brushing my teeth hurt my elbow. I now keep my cholesterol down with diet and green tea and fish oil supplements. My uncle, in his late 70s, was starting to fail mentally. Thank God the doc, instead of loading him up with Alzheimer's meds, discontinued his Simvastatin. He's just fine now.

[Deleted]

Yeah... poor pharma... WHY is it that so many pharma companies ARE having to enter corporate integrity agreements? Could it be that they have been found to be LYING... misbranding drugs, marketing against the FDA, and actually HIDING information about side effects... until, you know, they have to end up paying a FRACTION of what they actually made on a pattented drug in settlements...

Money from the lawyers in class action and qui tam lawsuits almost always comes FROM what is paid to the plaintiff... its not like the platintiff gets a huge settlement, and then the lawyers get a huge settlement...

I agree with prescription meds... if i can avoid them, we do...