Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Beyond the TV advertising cost, there are armies of drug reps going from office to office touting their version of a drug is better than the other guy's, complete with incentives to influence the prescriber. However, like the old saying goes, you have to spend money to make money. The goal of all this product promotion is to increase sales, and since big pharmaceutical companies have astute business people in charge, I doubt they would be running their advertising at a loss. Remember, drug costs are incremental---it takes about $750 million to make the first pill, and then 1/100 of a cent for the rest. So sell 750 million pills---$1/pill, 7.5 billion pills--10 cents a pill. This results in lower costs to the consumer (even if you don't believe it) It's also good for the employees, the stockholder, and the economy if general. The cost that they cannot control is product liability. I'd like to know the advertising cost for "1-800-BAD-DRUG", because ultimately you are paying for that as well
Now before you think I'm in the drug companies pocket, no, far from it. They do some real slimy things, such as distribute their research, development and marketing costs across the domestic market only. This is why, prior to going generic, Lipitor cost $1.75/pill in the US, 0.84 in Canada and 0.38 in India. They then turn to Congress whenever price regulation comes up and plead poverty based on their R&D&Marketing costs. They also have a tendency to cherry pick their data, which may be why certain drugs get yanked within months of their original release.
But all that aside, we are far better off with the pharmacology of today than we were 50 years ago
As far as HMOs and insurance prior authorization for procedures goes, this is just a cost cutting measure. They will make me personally get on the phone with their medical director after denying a test. It takes time , but no biggie. I have never had a test denied after speaking to them. Either they already know the test is indicated and are just going thru the motions, or in many cases just don't know, in which case I'll talk over their heads for a while and they'll approve it.
As far a dentists go, they are not regulated to any degree and can charge whatever they want, so all you can do is find one that you trust
|
I agree that we are better off with the pharmacology of today than we were 50 years ago. That being said, I still think all the advertising to consumers is not their best use of their monies. (All the Viagra and Cialis commercials, especially come to mind. No, I am not prudish; just not convinced that those need all the advertising dollars.) Working with the doctors is one thing; having consumers that involved is another. Maybe they just need to do a better job with the doctors. I have no problem with OTC drugs that do not require a doctor's prescription, but do advise that you check with your doctor before using them in their ads.
Too much of the time, drugs are not allowed by insurance or the cost is so prohibitive it is ridiculous. I was in a pharmacy once when a fellow came in to pick up his cancer script which was some outrageous amount and not covered by insurance. He told the pharmacist that he could in no way afford the medicine, remarked that he guessed he would just die, left it on the counter, and walked out. Sad, in such a country of plenty.
It takes my husband about 15 minutes to reach the "donut" hole every year. I just thank God that so far we are fortunate enough to be able to pay. One really expensive drug has been around for years and has yet to go generic. He was on this drug for at least 4 years before we moved here and that will soon be 12. The VA will no longer provide it because it remains so expensive.
The primary doctor we had in the HMO in Amarillo was forced by the HMO to drop many of his patients because he was making too many referrals. He only referred my husband for a colonoscopy after an initial sigmoid that revealed a polyp. They denied it. Only after my husband called them and raised holy he** did they finally approve the procedure. They found four others further into the colon that were on the verge of becoming cancerous and caught just in the nick of time. Too me, that is not good medicine. It may cut costs, but just how many lives does it cut short--to say nothing of costing more in the long run?
I just love good discussion, don't you? Thanks.
