Quote:
Originally Posted by dillywho
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.  |
Even better because you know what you are talking about
I've never been a fan of direct to consumer drug marketing, ever since Merrill-Dow put out that 1st vaguely veiled trental commercial 30 years ago. It's confusing to patients, doesn't really enhance patient care, and in many cases you are right--I also consider it a waste of money. But the executives at the pharmaceutical company must disagree. Now, however, the ads are ridiculous, both in number and scope. After listening to their endless list of "side effects", I'll bet patient compliance with their prescription meds has taken a quantum drop. Heck, if I didn't know better I wouldn't take what I take either. I find it amazing that most of the ad focuses on the 2-3% "side effects" rather than the 98% effect that the drug was designed for. Coincidentally, I just returned from my pharmacy where my wife's meds cost over $400/month out of pocket
The colonoscopy story is ridiculous, I've never seen a denial for a procedure that had a 100% indication. I suspect the 1st representative was , well to put it politely, confused. I also think your husband shouldn't have had to be the one arguing, his doctor should, and frankly, we get better results. I'm really amazed at that denial, and that was from a privately employed worker at a private insurance company that has some vested interest in customer satisfaction--after all they have competition. A little scary to think what will happen when government bureaucrats run the whole show.