Will Someone Please Pay for my Rubbers

[nathanm]

I sure got the impression that you thought the reason it should be covered was due largely (but not entirely) to the cost.

It is around $100 a month if a particular individual can only tolerate a patent protected drug, but it's not really about the money. Either offer prescription drug coverage or don't. Anything else is discriminatory.

[Red Arrow]

It is around $100 a month if a particular individual can only tolerate a patent protected drug, but it's not really about the money. Either offer prescription drug coverage or don't. Anything else is discriminatory.

As an extreme example, covering a prescription drug that was only $1.00 per month would be silly as the paperwork would cost more than that.   $100 per month is certainly worth covering by insurance.  Somewhere between $1.00 and $100.00 per month is a reasonable line that you and I will probably have to disagree about.

[Gaspar]

It is around $100 a month if a particular individual can only tolerate a patent protected drug, but it's not really about the money. Either offer prescription drug coverage or don't. Anything else is discriminatory.

So, being financially responsible for your own healthcare is discriminatory. Check!

Medical supervision for BCP is unfair. Check!

Some common OTC drugs used for decades are dangerous and should require medical supervision. Check!

Herbal compounds that exhibit toxicity in high dosages or interact with other drugs negatively should be prescription, or at least require medical supervision.  Check!

Hormonal treatments with a broad range of patient independent side effects, including organ failure, cancer, and death, should be free, and available in a variety of preparations with no medical supervision or prescription requirement. Check!

BCP should be a 100% free prescription under healthcare plans. Check!

BCP should not be a prescription, and as a result, not covered by healthcare plans. Check!  

Do you see any inconsistency in your arguments?

I'm surprised that you haven't had the experience of watching someone die over a period of days from liver failure brought on by an acetaminophen overdose if you've seen someone nearly killed by a blood clot caused by BCP. (You probably never saw the person with seratonin syndrome from St. John's Wort unless you were an EMT..they went straight to the morgue) Should we put that behind the counter? There are lots of countries that don't sell it OTC like we do. It kills over 450 people a year in the US alone.

BTW, I was an EMT.  Worked as a Trauma Technician and Phlebotomist too. I received my Paramedic (EMT-P) license and worked for 5 years in that capacity.

Several times a year there was some dumb young teen girl that thought taking a bottle of Tylenol was an excellent way to get attention.  Most survived, many died.  All had severe liver/kidney damage and many enjoyed a lifetime of dialysis.  EVERY drug is toxic if you take enough.  No drug is without side effects.  BCP is not a drug.  It's a hormone.  That is a very different realm of medicine that is far more dependent on the individual patient's system, with a very broad range of serious side effects.  It's not Tylenol or St. John's Wart.  Sure, I could make a list that would fill the page of the stupid sh!t I've watched people die from, but you still won't convince me that allowing the dumb-masses to screw with their body's hormonal balance blindly is a good idea, especially not when spending a few moments consulting with a physician can avoid so many problems.

And, as for your comment about OTC being less expensive than prescription, you are incorrect.  The latest and most successful round of drugs transitioned to OTC were the H2 blockers and the proton pump inhibitors.  All used to treat acid reflux disease (a disease by the way that is in most cases controlled by limiting carbohydrate, primarily wheat flour, intake).  The drug companies pushed for their OTC acceptance because of the broad range of other GERD drugs entering the competitive landscape.  Downward price pressure and generic acceptance was killing the market for the brand name compounds.  We saw the same thing with the NSAID market.  

OTC drugs have significant advantages that prescription drugs do not.  Primarily marketing and product packaging.  They can command a higher price and more profitable then their prescription counterparts, and not susceptible to insurance and hospital formulary restriction.  They are also available to patients not willing to seek a physicians advice.  OTC is where every drug company wants their product to end up.  Freedom from stiff physician regulation, and in most cases wisdom.

BTC is very inexpensive by prescription.  At the low end, even the name brands compete with the generic.  OTC BCPs will give the big drug powerhouses the ability to package, market, and display the preparations to encourage sales.  The price of both the name brand and the generic will increase, and will no longer be subject to insurance company or hospital price pressure.  

Your daughter will be able to choose the product with the bright pink box with a daisy on it in the giant display with the flashing lights.  She doesn't understand mono-phasic, by-phasic, or tri-phasic. She'll try one one month and perhaps a competitive product will come out with a prettier box the next month.  WalMart may have a sale on a BCP she has never tried.  The dosages will vary.  She won't understand why she gets drunk so easy now.  She may have some miscarriages because she doesn't understand that the medication she takes for her acne negates the effect of the BCP.  She'll probably just go for a higher dosage thinking that should remedy the problem.  

[nathanm]

So, being financially responsible for your own healthcare is discriminatory. Check!

I might have read the rest of your post had you not started off with this gem. What is discriminatory is offering prescription drug coverage for only some prescriptions. As I said, either offer it or don't. It's not discriminatory if you don't offer it, and it's not discriminatory if you cover everything (or at least every class of drug, if not every individual drug). It is discriminatory if you refuse to cover some medications that only ladies need. And yes, some women do in fact need hormonal BCP. And not in the "oh god, gotta have my viagra to get it up" way.

[Gaspar]

I might have read the rest of your post had you not started off with this gem.

Probably a good thing.  No time for sock puppets today.

[Red Arrow]

Probably a good thing.  No time for sock puppets today.

He probably accidently saw where you wrote that you were an EMT and decided not to jeopardize his position by reading your post.

[Gaspar]

He probably accidently saw where you wrote that you were an EMT and decided not to jeopardize his position by reading your post.

It certainly doen't make me an expert, but it does give me a different perspective.  I have several friends that are physicians, and most agree that the drug companies are the primary mover behind this.  They've tried it in the past and failed, but in the new Fluke era, I guess they see a new opportunity to capitalize.  I think they may be right.

We have a very different populous eager to be mislead, and drug companies are the masters at that.   

[Conan71]

I might have read the rest of your post had you not started off with this gem. What is discriminatory is offering prescription drug coverage for only some prescriptions. As I said, either offer it or don't. It's not discriminatory if you don't offer it, and it's not discriminatory if you cover everything (or at least every class of drug, if not every individual drug). It is discriminatory if you refuse to cover some medications that only ladies need. And yes, some women do in fact need hormonal BCP. And not in the "oh god, gotta have my viagra to get it up" way.

Do you find it discriminatory that female-specific cancers seem to garner more attention than male-specific, or that it's virtually ignored that men do get and die from breast cancer?

[Townsend]

He probably accidently saw where you wrote that you were an EMT

That made me wary of EMT's.

Possibly where he learned to BBQ.

[Gaspar]

That made me wary of EMT's.

Possibly where he learned to BBQ.

Meat is meat!

[Gaspar]

Do you find it discriminatory that female-specific cancers seem to garner more attention than male-specific, or that it's virtually ignored that men do get and die from breast cancer?

Yeah, but it's about 200 times more prevalent in women. But. . . men enjoy a much higher overall cancer rate and cancer mortality rate than women.  This is likely because men won't typically visit the doctor until that spot on their skin has actually grown an eyeball or something.

A physician friend of mine were discussing this thread last night and he told me that men's mortality from cancer has actually been decreasing since the introduction of the drug Viagra.  Sounds strange, but prescriptions for Viagra (and other "wood" drugs) have actually made men visit the doctor more often, and in doing so be screened for prostate and other cancers.  If this represents an accurate unintended consequence, the reverse would also be true,  making a drug like Viagra OTC (something drug companies are also pushing for) would increase the cancer mortality rate in men.  Following that logic one would also be able to deduct that making BCPs OTC would cause women to visit the doctor less often, therefore increasing cancer mortality in women.  So the drug company's push for OTC birth control represents a higher overall mortality rate for women on many fronts.

It's a war on women.

[Conan71]

men enjoy a much higher overall cancer rate and cancer mortality rate than women. 

I don't suspect they enjoy it too much

[nathanm]

The paranoia, it burns.

[Gaspar]

The paranoia, it burns.

Drink more fluids, you're probably just passing one.

[nathanm]

Drink more fluids, you're probably just passing one.

Yeah, I'm not the one positing a drug company conspiracy to keel our childrens.