Obama admin: Remove the perscription requirements for meds for diabetes, blood press

[Little-Acorn]

Apparently the Obama administration thinks it's OK to let drugs that can kill you, or that can let you die if not properly applied for defined, common, but often non-symptomatic conditions, be doled out on the advice of pharmacists who have not examined the patient they are advising.

Sounds like a plan.

Of course, the reason is to save money for the government. I've bolded the parts of the article that point this out. Why am I not surprised that the people we have in the current administration, consider this a reasonable tradeoff?

BTW, I've been noticing recently, that the ads on TV for drugs spend more time talking about the adverse effects of the drug they're pushing, than the beneficial effects.

I've always used that as a kind of a Go-NoGo barometer on whether to even bother asking my doctor about a drug: If the bad news about it exceeds the good news, from somebody who WANTS me to buy it, it's probably something I don't want to be taking.

Well, if the Obamanites succeed in removing the perscription requirements on glypizide or whatever, the TV commercial advertising it will become longer than the episode of Jersey Shore it's sponsoring. Its advertisers will go into such detail about the possible bad effects, side effects, overuse effects, ground effects, and special effects, to try to avoid the million lawsuits that will come their way anyway, that the commercial will exceed the show time. Which, of course, will make people leave to pop some popcorn and not listen to any of it. Sort of like they already do now.

One good note: If implemented, this plan will prove Darwinian evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/29/fda-may-let-patients-buy-drugs-without-prescriptio/?page=all#pagebreak

FDA may let patients buy drugs without prescriptions
Move would increase patients’ out-of-pocket costs

by Paige Winfield Cunningham
The Washington Times
Sunday, April 29, 2012

In a move that could help the government trim its burgeoning health care costs, the Food and Drug Administration may soon permit Americans to obtain some drugs used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes without obtaining a prescription.

The FDA says over-the-counter distribution would let patients get drugs for many common conditions without the time and expense of visiting a doctor, but medical providers call the change medically unsound and note that it also may mean that insurance no longer will pay for the drugs.

“The problem is medicine is just not that simple,” said Dr. Matthew Mintz, an internist at George Washington University Hospital. “You can’t just follow rules and weigh all the pros and cons. It needs to be individualized.”

Under the changes that the agency is considering, patients could diagnose their ailments by answering questions online or at a pharmacy kiosk in order to buy current prescription-only drugs for conditions such as high cholesterol, certain infections, migraine headaches, asthma or allergies.

By removing the prescription requirement from popular drugs, the Obama administration could ease financial pressures on the overburdened Medicare system by paying for fewer doctor visits and possibly opening the door to make seniors pay a larger share of the cost of their medications.

[Peach]

Apparently the Obama administration thinks it's OK to let drugs that can kill you, or that can let you die if not properly applied for defined, common, but often non-symptomatic conditions, be doled out on the advice of pharmacists who have not examined the patient they are advising.

Sounds like a plan.

Of course, the reason is to save money for the government. I've bolded the parts of the article that point this out. Why am I not surprised that the people we have in the current administration, consider this a reasonable tradeoff?

BTW, I've been noticing recently, that the ads on TV for drugs spend more time talking about the adverse effects of the drug they're pushing, than the beneficial effects.

I've always used that as a kind of a Go-NoGo barometer on whether to even bother asking my doctor about a drug: If the bad news about it exceeds the good news, from somebody who WANTS me to buy it, it's probably something I don't want to be taking.

Well, if the Obamanites succeed in removing the perscription requirements on glypizide or whatever, the TV commercial advertising it will become longer than the episode of Jersey Shore it's sponsoring. Its advertisers will go into such detail about the possible bad effects, side effects, overuse effects, ground effects, and special effects, to try to avoid the million lawsuits that will come their way anyway, that the commercial will exceed the show time. Which, of course, will make people leave to pop some popcorn and not listen to any of it. Sort of like they already do now.

One good note: If implemented, this plan will prove Darwinian evolution beyond any shadow of a doubt.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/29/fda-may-let-patients-buy-drugs-without-prescriptio/?page=all#pagebreak

FDA may let patients buy drugs without prescriptions
Move would increase patients’ out-of-pocket costs

by Paige Winfield Cunningham
The Washington Times
Sunday, April 29, 2012

In a move that could help the government trim its burgeoning health care costs, the Food and Drug Administration may soon permit Americans to obtain some drugs used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes without obtaining a prescription.

The FDA says over-the-counter distribution would let patients get drugs for many common conditions without the time and expense of visiting a doctor, but medical providers call the change medically unsound and note that it also may mean that insurance no longer will pay for the drugs.

“The problem is medicine is just not that simple,” said Dr. Matthew Mintz, an internist at George Washington University Hospital. “You can’t just follow rules and weigh all the pros and cons. It needs to be individualized.”

Under the changes that the agency is considering, patients could diagnose their ailments by answering questions online or at a pharmacy kiosk in order to buy current prescription-only drugs for conditions such as high cholesterol, certain infections, migraine headaches, asthma or allergies.

By removing the prescription requirement from popular drugs, the Obama administration could ease financial pressures on the overburdened Medicare system by paying for fewer doctor visits and possibly opening the door to make seniors pay a larger share of the cost of their medications.

The Washington Times isn't a great source, and since too many aspirin can kill one, what is the problem? Tylenol PM is available over the counter, I cannot take because my blood pressure runs LOW, some antihistamines lower blood pressure. I believe one can buy antibiotics without a prescription in Canada. That may have changed. How can this INCREASE medical costs? Sounds like since MD's may lose business, the lobbyists are afgainst it.

[logroller]

Sounds reasonable to me. Aspirin can lethal, but that's OTC. Quite frankly I'm sick of the paternalistic relationship that has overcome the medical sector. As for the money savings, Ill believe it when I see it. My sister in law was on Medicare/medicaid and she would go to the doctor and be prescribed benadryl robitussin etc, all OTC products and have it covered on the public dime. Later she'd get private coverage and surprise surprise she didn't go to the doctor every time her son had a cough. Any change to any service /product market which cuts out middlemen is good for the consumer.

[Abbey Marie]

These meds will almost certainly be more expensive for the consumer OTC than they are under current insurance plans that I am aware of.

Re: the aspirin argument. Almost anything can be lethal if you take a ton of it at one time. However, if you take a slightly wrong dosage of Diabetes or blood pressure meds, you can really be screwed up.

[logroller]

These meds will almost certainly be more expensive for the consumer OTC than they are under current insurance plans that I am aware of.

Re: the aspirin argument. Almost anything can be lethal if you take a ton of it at one time. However, if you take a slightly wrong dosage of Diabetes or blood pressure meds, you can really be screwed up.
More expensive out of pocket perhaps, but the subsidizing of medications drives the cost up overall. Think about it; if delivery of a product involves 6 people vs 3, it costs more. As for aspirin, look up rhye's syndrome(sp.?). Say a kid has the flu and is given peptobismo. Can be lethal. I honestly have never heard of someone saying, 'I think I have diabetes, anybody have some insulin?' same for high blood pressure; most people diagnosed with the condition will be medicated for the rest of their life. Of course diet and exercise play an important part too, but often these medications are taken as routinely as a daily multivitamin. I'm not suggesting one self medicate; there's certainly no substitute for the advice of a physician, but after seeing the exact same presentation of symptoms for the umpteenth time, I know the routine and indications, contraindications and causes for concern. I don't need to go to the doctor to tell me th same thing I already know- I need medication, not a prescription per se.

[Kathianne]

More expensive out of pocket perhaps, but the subsidizing of medications drives the cost up overall. Think about it; if delivery of a product involves 6 people vs 3, it costs more. As for aspirin, look up rhye's syndrome(sp.?). Say a kid has the flu and is given peptobismo. Can be lethal. I honestly have never heard of someone saying, 'I think I have diabetes, anybody have some insulin?' same for high blood pressure; most people diagnosed with the condition will be medicated for the rest of their life. Of course diet and exercise play an important part too, but often these medications are taken as routinely as a daily multivitamin. I'm not suggesting one self medicate; there's certainly no substitute for the advice of a physician, but after seeing the exact same presentation of symptoms for the umpteenth time, I know the routine and indications, contraindications and causes for concern. I don't need to go to the doctor to tell me th same thing I already know- I need medication, not a prescription per se.

Brings me back to my years long proposition that insurance is the factor driving up the costs. Make the consumer responsible for everyday meds and doctor visits. Make insurance the resort of major medical.

[Little-Acorn]

Brings me back to my years long proposition that insurance is the factor driving up the costs. Make the consumer responsible for everyday meds and doctor visits. Make insurance the resort of major medical.

That was always the place of insurance... until government got involved and made it "free" by taking the money out of people's checks before they ever saw it in the 1940s. This soon changed it from genuine "insurance" that paid for major things, into "medical payment plans" that paid for every sniffle, hangnail, and pill. Nobody noticed that rates quintupled... until they lost their "free" insurance and had to go back to paying their premiums out of pocket. Ask your boss what your COBRA payments would be for the coverage you now have, if you had to pay them yourself.

[Abbey Marie]

More expensive out of pocket perhaps, but the subsidizing of medications drives the cost up overall. Think about it; if delivery of a product involves 6 people vs 3, it costs more. As for aspirin, look up rhye's syndrome(sp.?). Say a kid has the flu and is given peptobismo. Can be lethal. I honestly have never heard of someone saying, 'I think I have diabetes, anybody have some insulin?' same for high blood pressure; most people diagnosed with the condition will be medicated for the rest of their life. Of course diet and exercise play an important part too, but often these medications are taken as routinely as a daily multivitamin. I'm not suggesting one self medicate; there's certainly no substitute for the advice of a physician, but after seeing the exact same presentation of symptoms for the umpteenth time, I know the routine and indications, contraindications and causes for concern. I don't need to go to the doctor to tell me th same thing I already know- I need medication, not a prescription per se.

Regardless of the expected reduction in costs, I know that my husband's allergy medicine is more expensive for us since it went OTC. What makes sense and what actually happens in pricing can often be two very different things, unfortunately.

As for you being safe using OTC because you follow the contraindications, etc., you are decidedly not the average person in either intelligence or self-responsibility. Never underestimate the sheer idiocy and laziness of the average Joe.

[jon_forward]

I believe this is just election year babble to try a garner votes from the same mis-informed rubes that have left his flock. I am on heart meds and cannot fathom trying to self medicate with this class of drug. it has taken 2 years,5 heart caths, one stent and 6 heart specialist to get me on the proper meds. the first drug i was put on,colreg i think, almost killed me. this is the most widely prescribed med in its class. If this folly comes to fruitation they had better redesign the hospitals. the ER will be way to small.

[logroller]

Regardless of the expected reduction in costs, I know that my husband's allergy medicine is more expensive for us since it went OTC. What makes sense and what actually happens in pricing can often be two very different things, unfortunately.

As for you being safe using OTC because you follow the contraindications, etc., you are decidedly not the average person in either intelligence or self-responsibility. Never underestimate the sheer idiocy and laziness of the average Joe.
socially, the effect of big brothers involvement, a paternalistic relationship, is increased laziness.
I understand what you mean by out of pocket costs increasing; what I'm saying is that those costs were previously covered by insurance, likely employer paid, hidden to you because they take the form of forgone wage increases ( or some other perk)-- so you paid for it anyways, it was just hidden. when it's a public endeavor the details are laid for the public to see; understandably, people find this frustrating. In the private sector these costs are hidden, and true to the old adage, ignorance is bliss. Maybe I am more aware than the average bear; that doesn't mean others are incapable of understanding, but rather unwilling to.


I believe this is just election year babble to try a garner votes from the same mis-informed rubes that have left his flock. I am on heart meds and cannot fathom trying to self medicate with this class of drug. it has taken 2 years,5 heart caths, one stent and 6 heart specialist to get me on the proper meds. the first drug i was put on,colreg i think, almost killed me. this is the most widely prescribed med in its class. If this folly comes to fruitation they had better redesign the hospitals. the ER will be way to small.
Im glad you got it straightened out; sounds like youve had quite the ride. You did sense there was a problem though, and sought professional care. We're everything fine, with the meds doing their job, whats the point in going to the doctor?

[SassyLady]

Regardless of the expected reduction in costs, I know that my husband's allergy medicine is more expensive for us since it went OTC. What makes sense and what actually happens in pricing can often be two very different things, unfortunately.

As for you being safe using OTC because you follow the contraindications, etc., you are decidedly not the average person in either intelligence or self-responsibility. Never underestimate the sheer idiocy and laziness of the average Joe.

I had a doctor that recently prescribed meds for me and I specifically asked if it had an interaction with a med I was already taking. He said no.

Well, I'm the type that will read the entire pamphlet before I take a new med. Guess what? It specifically stated that was not to be taken with the prior meds. When I pointed it out to him at next appointment he had to look up in his little black book. The first med did not point to contraindications, but the new one did. He said ..... "thanks for letting me know". He also said that I wouldn't have to watch what I ate with the dosage I'm taking. Guess what....that was also a mistake on his part.

The point being ... even doctor's get it wrong, so how will the lay person make those decisions, especially when a large portion cannot even read?