I went to pick up a prescription last week - the co-pay was 222.00 dollars!

[debbierlus]

I thought there was a mistake. I had the pharmacy clerk check the insurance info, and she showed me what the insurance covered & the cost of the medication.

Medication:

487

Co Pay

222

I told her that was rape, and had her take it off my bill. Fortunately, this was a new med that wasn't absolutely mandatory for me to take, so I had the 'luxury' of refusing to pay for it. It was, however, the best recommended drug for my treatment.

Comprehensive health care reform NOW. I haven't heard much about the pharmeceutical companies profiteering, in the public discussion, thus far. Health care is breaking the economy. Every 30 seconds an American goes bankrupt from the cost of health care.

SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE NOW & Criminal Prosecution for Pharm Price Gouging. NO MORE CORPORATE PROFITEERING OFF OUR LIVES!

[boppers]

1. What drug?

And why would you try such an expensive thing if you didn't need it?

[debbierlus]

16. I would prefer not to get into revealing health conditions

Through talking about the specific script...

And, I was PRESCRIBED it. I had NO idea that it would cost that much. My doctor thought it was a good treatment for me, and she was probably right. I didn't ASK for the damn thing, it was a recommended drug. I won't die without it, but it probably would have been beneficial for my condition.

I can't afford it, bottom line.

[boppers]

18. Wasn't trying to pry, my apologies.

My SO is on a drug that, depending on the source, runs between $500 and $10,000 per monthly dose (which is quite the range). For her, it's worth it, as she's tried the other, cheaper, alternatives.

[debbierlus]

20. It is a newer drug, there aren't any cheaper versions

Thanks for the suggestion.

[condoleeza]

41. An article on drug companies worth reading

Do You Have Fibromyalgia? Pfizer hopes so

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/13190/

Having had family with unfortunate experiences with "new" drugs, I am extremely cautious and investigate everything before I would take it. I have one prescription that I have taken for years, and I have watched that drug increase in cost 400%. Recently there was another big jump. My feeling on this is that the drug companies know their days may be numbered if the Obama Admin actually gets health care reform accomplished and these guys are trying to make as much as possible while they can.

[Daxxie]

57. Thanks for this article.....

I have fibro, along with some other chronic pain conditions, and the first thing I hear when I mention that I have fibro is "Have you tried Lyrica?" No, I haven't, and after reading up on it from several sources, I don't want to.

[tblue37]

39. Same here--I can get by without the new drug, and when the doc prescribed it, I had no

idea it would cost that much. It's a newer treatment, and would more effective than the one I am on, but the one I am on costs $46/month co-pay, not $178/month.

[cherish44]

2. ....

:wtf: I pay more $90 out of pocket for a medicine that is should be covered but isn't for me because it's for a "pre existing" condition. I agree something needs to be done. That $90 would be nice to have back.

[dkf]

3. Obama's health plan would cost hundreds of billions of dollars

and I don't think your problem would be solved.

I wonder what people in Canada pay for this drug.

[jannyk]

12. Our recent experience in Canada...

We have a cabin on Vancouver Island (BC) and are driving back to California as I write this.

We were there for 3 months and my husband had a bad flare up of Gout. Usually it goes away after a day or two, but not this time. So, dreading the cost - because we are not insured in Canada - off we went to one of the many 'walk-in' clinics in the area.

It was Sunday evening, around 6pm. We waited 7 minutes to see the doctor. We were with the doctor for 20+ minutes - he was very thorough and detailed. He prescribed 2 medications and said he had tripled the number of each pill so we'd have them on hand for future needs. Total doctor cost for the visit $50!!!

So off we go to the pharmacy, hand over his 'scrips and wait patiently. Total cost for meds, (90 pills of a non steroid anti-inflammatory and 120 pills of a uric acid preventer) cost $20.

At home we would have paid far more, even though we pay $500 a month for, so called, health insurance.

I grew up in England and, for the past 5 years, have spent part of the year in Canada. Our 'home base' is California. I can tell you from experience, that 'single payer, 'socialized medicine' or whatever name they wish to assign to it, is the only way to go.

[morillon]

26. This is good news about Canada.

I hope to be living there permanently within the next two years. We all hear so many stupid stories from conservatives about how "horrible" health care is in Canada. I try to debunk them with real world stories from physicians and patients, and you've just given me more ammo. :-)

[arikara]

35. Health care isn't horrible here in Canada

however its not as good as it used to be since the governments keep it chronically underfunded. Their goal is still to privatize but they've had too much opposition to the idea.

My daughter used to live in the US and I've heard her horror stories about your private insurance and system. I would fight tooth and nail to avoid going down that road.

[Spider Jerusalem]

43. I'm in the UK now;

prescriptions in Wales are free and capped at about £6.95 in England and Scotland.

[deaniac21]

51. Nothing is free.

[ikri]

61. Free at the point of delivery

Yes everything is subsidised via taxes, but at the point of delivery - when you go to pick up the treatment or prescription you either pay a capped rate in England or nothing in Scotland & Wales.

Even with the capped rate there are exemptions, chronic conditions like Asthma aren't charged, neither do you have to pay if you're pregnant, unemployed or a pensioner.

[debbierlus]

19. Obama's health care plan is Mandatory Health Insurance and it won't work

I live in MA, and we are trying that system here right now.

We have completely unequal coverage. Some people have catastrophic coverage which doesn't allow anything for regular exams and routine care...

It is financially unsustainable. Our system will be financially insolvent in TWO years because it doesn't remove insurance company profiteering from the equation.

Mandatory Health Insurance is the insurance industry's wet dream. REMOVE THE LEECHES. We do NOT need them.

[Triana]

32. The *^#^%@^@!)_# insurance companies are chomping at the bit for mandatory "insurance" because ....

...the WANT OUR MONEY - the more people signed up the more money they get.

BUT - when it comes time to pay up and provide coverage - it ain't gonna happen. It'll be the same old song and dance UNLESS Obama disallows that crap - and even then, the bastards would just find another way around any new rules.

We need them OUT of the picture - I can understand having them there for a couple more years and MAKING THEM COMPETE with a national plan as part of a transition, but after that, they need fast phasing out - ALL THE WAY OUT.

Money-grubbing, interfering bastards!

[Delphinus]

46. Have you read this from Dr. McCanne?

It outlines your state's health plan and how bad it really is. Dr. McCanne is with Physicians for a National Health Plan.

February 18, 2009
Massachusetts' Plan: A Failed Model for Health Care Reform
Prepared by Dr. Rachel Nardin, Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, with Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (both Associate Professors of Medicine, Harvard Medical School)
Executive Summary

The Massachusetts Health Reform Law of 2006 expanded Medicaid coverage for the poor and made available subsidized, Medicaid-like coverage for additional poor and near-poor residents of the state. It also mandated that middle-income uninsured people either purchase private health insurance or pay a substantial fine ($1,068 in 2009). Smaller fines (up to $295 per employee) were also levied on employers who fail to offer insurance benefits.

The reform law has not achieved universal health insurance coverage, although half or more of the previously uninsured now have some type of insurance policy.

The reform has been more expensive than expected, costing $1.1 billion in fiscal 2008 and $1.3 billion in fiscal 2009. In the face of a state budget crisis in fall 2008, Gov. Deval Patrick announced that he will keep the reform afloat by draining money from safety-net providers such as public hospitals and community clinics.

While the number of people lacking health insurance in Massachusetts has been reduced, several recent surveys demonstrate that substantial problems in access to care remain in the state. While the new health insurance improved access to care for some residents, many low-income patients who previously received completely free care under the state’s old free care program now face co-payments, premiums and deductibles that stop them from getting needed care.

In addition, cuts to safety-net providers have reduced health resources available to the state’s remaining uninsured, as well as to others who rely on safety-net providers for services in short supply in the private sector. These safety-net services include emergency room care, chronic mental health care, and primary care. The net effect of this expensive reform on access to care is at best modest, and for some patients, negative.

By mandating that uninsured residents purchase private health insurance, the law reinforced the economic and political power of health insurance firms. Thus, the reform augments the already high administrative costs of health care. Moreover, the agency that administers the new law (the “Connector”) adds an extra 4 to 5 percentage points to the already high overhead of private health insurance policies.

The reform failed to reduce over-reliance on expensive, high-technology services. Indeed, some of its provisions such as changes in Medicaid rates and cuts to safety-net providers (who do more primary care) have further tilted health spending toward expensive, high-technology care.
A single-payer system of non-profit national health insurance could save about $8-$10 billion annually in the state through reduced administrative costs. This money could be used to cover all of the state’s uninsured residents and to improve coverage for those who now have insurance, without any increase in total health care costs.

The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care, even in a state with highly favorable circumstances, including previously high levels of spending on health care for the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance. It is not a model for the nation.
Report: Massachusetts’ Plan: A Failed Model for Health Care Reform
http://pnhp.org/mass_report/mass_report_Final.pdf
Press release: Massachusetts Is No Model for National Health Care Reform
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/february/massachusetts_is_no_.php

Comment: Those supporting the leading Democratic model for reform frequently cite the Massachusetts plan as an example of how building on our current system of health care financing is the best path to success. Unfortunately, they use selected positive numbers to define success, while ignoring the fact that Massachusetts has failed in its efforts to achieve the real goals of reform. You can understand how pathological the politics of reform has become when they have to dig into the data of a failed reform effort in order to redefine failure as a success.

Let’s look at some of the goals, and how Massachusetts has fared:
• Everyone should be included - We should quit being dishonest when we say universal, and start demanding that universal means absolutely everyone. The Massachusetts model has left perhaps five percent of individuals without any coverage whatsoever, and there is little likelihood that the numbers of uninsured will be reduced further because of serious flaws in their model.
• The growth in health care costs must be slowed - The Massachusetts model has been ineffective in addressing the primary causes of excess cost escalation.
• Health care must be affordable for each individual - Insurance premiums and cost sharing in private plans have remained unaffordable for many in Massachusetts, impairing access to care. Insurmountable debt or personal bankruptcy from medical bills remains a very real threat in Massachusetts.
• Under-insurance must be eliminated - Massachusetts has expanded the problem of under-insurance in an attempt to make premiums affordable, failing to achieve either goal of adequate plans or affordable premiums.
• Administrative waste must be reduced - Massachusetts has added complexity to an already complex financing system, significantly increasing the administrative waste in their system.
• Coverage should be automatic, portable, and permanent - Massachusetts has provided further confirmation that no model built on our dysfunctional financing system can achieve these goals.
• Health care must be accessible - The Massachusetts model has further exacerbated the deficiencies in the state's primary care infrastructure, resulting in increased difficulty in accessing their system. Their fragmented financing model has very little capability of realigning resource allocation to improve access.
• Private intermediaries that waste resources and impair access must be eliminated - But isn't this what the Massachusetts plan is all about? Their view is that we must use our public agencies and tax funds in an all-out effort to protect the private insurance industry, regardless of the harm to patients in the form of physical suffering and financial hardship.

Suppose Congress and the Obama administration accept the message that the Massachusetts plan is the wrong model for reform. Will they then move forward with a single payer national health program - a model that would actually achieve our goals? It is unlikely, based on all signals emitting from Washington. Instead, they will develop a uniquely American plan designed for Americans.
It will be a plan built on our uniquely American, dysfunctional, fragmented system of financing health care. But it won’t be like the Massachusetts plan that was developed in a wealthy state with greater health care resources, and with fewer financing problems than the rest of the nation. No, it won’t be like Massachusetts. It will be much worse... much, much worse.

(Edit to add paragraphs that got lost in translation.)

[Naturyl]

49. Agreed, it's an OBVIOUSLY bad plan...

Making involvement with the for-profit, bloodsucking insurance companies MANDATORY is just so obviously the wrong way to go. It won't help anyone but the god-forsaken corporate lobbyists and their employers.

We need real, civilized, 21st century single-payer health care. Accept no substitutes.

[grilled onions]

4. It's Daylight Robbery

It's only March and I am half way thru to the dreaded "doughnut hole" gap. I picked a middle plan and only AFTER it was set in stone did I have other meds that have no generic possibility added on.
We very much need medical for all NOW. It breaks my heart to go to the pharmacy and see others walk away empty handed because they can't afford new drugs. A couple meds my husband takes went up $60-$90 dollars and yet when you see THEIR price it only went up several dollars! "They" are robbing us blind and they don't even need a gun!!

[justinaforjustice]

29. Yup, It is Robbery.

The only solution to our obscene health care costs is a national single-payer like they have in many other industrialized countries. The media and many politicians, such as Democratic Senator Max Baccus, are fond of claiming that "Americans are not ready for single-payer". That is nonsense, we are desperate for single-payer. Only the private insurance companies -- and the media and politicians they own -- are not ready for single payer because it would mean that the insurance companies would lose their exorbitant profits.

We must demand that our congressional representatives pass a truly universal single-payer system. We cannot allow them to try to pull the wool over our eyes with minor fixes, such as the Wyden-Cooper plan, which would require that we purchase private insurance and allow the insurance companies to continue to increase their profits by denying valid claims.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. GULP.

Any way you can get a genric ?

Was that a month script or a one time use?

Good for you for taking a stand.

[LuvNewcastle]

6. Is this a short-term problem or

a condition that needs treatment for a long period? If it's the former, you might want to see if your doctor has any samples.

[debbierlus]

22. Long term.

Thanks for the suggestion though :)

[enlightenment]

7. My father takes Gleevec to treat GIST.

It's a form of chemotherapy. No generic, of course - and it is only one of two drugs that will effectively treat this type of cancer.

The average cost is about $3,600.00 for a 45 day supply (about $81 dollars per day). My dad is retired AF, has Medicare, Tricare, and another supplemental insurance, so his 90 day supply is $9. That's fantastic for him (and us) . . . but it begs the question of what the cost means to others who don't have his options.

The only thing that keeps his cancer in remission is this drug - without it he would have died 5 years ago.

People with this disease (or, more widely, CML, which is what the drug was originally designed to treat) will die. For wont of a pill a day.

edited to add: the other drug is newer and even more expensive.

[debbierlus]

17. I am glad your Dad is covered -

And, you are right. People die. If you need a medication to stay alive and you can not afford it, you die.

We can spend our money on war & bailout for the wealthiest & we let our own people go without needed medical care and prescriptions. Even people who HAVE insurance can't afford many drugs/therapies/treatments. And, it won't change until we remove the for-profit leeches from the system and regulate pricing on pharmeceuticals.

[marions ghost]

45. I'll tell you what it means to others

My Dad was diagnosed THIS very week as having CML leukemia. Otherwise he's in good health at 82, very active etc. but doesn't have a big income. OK so the treatment is Gleevec, at $81 per day. He has Medicare and AARP supplemental, no other drug coverage. Apparently from our research so far he is not going to get much help with the cost of this drug. It would have been covered if he had in-house treatment, but not for pills (!?!) So what do we do? Nobody in the family has this kind of money.

Dad will likely need this drug for the rest of his life, and given his other vital signs (heart-excellent, no other ailments) that could be awhile, hopefully.

This system is SO sick. WHEN will people just demand better? This is hurting our society. It's inhumane to deny life-saving treatments because of cost.

:cry:

[enlightenment]

52. I am so very sorry - I wish I knew how to help.

Have you tried the Novartis Patient Assistance Program?

http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/about-us/our-patient-caregiver-resources/paf-enrollment.jsp

My dad was 82 when he was diagnosed with GIST; although his health is steadily declining now, we have had five years I didn't think we'd get - had he not been living in Arizona and treated at the Mayo by doctors' who were aware of the clinical trials, he wouldn't have gotten the drug at all.

I sincerely hope you find an answer. :hug:

[marions ghost]

54. thanks for the support

I appreciate the suggestion about Novartis--I will look into that.

It's encouraging to hear of your Dad's success with this drug. You know it seems like "what's 5 years when someone is 82?" But as I'm sure you know those years can be a gift beyond value when it is your loved one. My dad goes around helping others and says he is not ready to leave this planet--his work is not done. He has an incredible will to live. I hope we can get this drug to help him do that. How is it that in this day and age families must suffer merely to help a family member in need of a life-saving drug? It's just insane.

:hug: thanks for understanding

[enlightenment]

56. I most certainly understand how you feel.

And I am increasingly discouraged with living in a nation that places the needs of its citizens behind corporate profit - and I don't see that changing anytime in the near future. As long as the focus is on health 'insurance' rather than health 'care' we will continue along this same, sorry road.

The mere idea (and I do see it mooted on DU occasionally, which is grotesque) that the elderly/weak/infirm should just die because they are a drain on resources is obscene.

I hope the patient assistance program can help you get the drug. It isn't a cure, but it does seem to keep the cancer at bay and sometimes that's the most you can hope for.

My very best to you and your dad. Fingers crossed!

[midnight]

8. That sure does not seem like a co-pay. That seems like you

have to pay half. I agree with you No more corporate profiteering off of our lives.

[asjr]

9. Between the oil companies

and pharm companies we will all bleed to death. That Medicare Part D is the biggest ripoff I have ever seen. And some of my favorite Democratic congresspeople fell for it. I think Joe Biden was one of those who voted for it.

[acmavm]

14. I don't know about that. Here's his voting record.

McCain health plan is ultimate Bridge to Nowhere. (Oct 2008)
Modernize, simplify & expand health insurance. (Nov 2007)
Help medical students find ways to finance their tuition. (Oct 2007)
Start paying for universal coverage with $100B in redundancy. (Sep 2007)
Rethink healthcare by focusing on prevention. (Sep 2007)
Start with catastrophic insurance and insuring all kids. (Aug 2007)
Got tested for AIDS after blood transfusion; no shame in it. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted YES on blocking medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007) http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

[Robbien]

10. All these leveraged buyouts are increasing the price of drugs

Pfizer is in the process of buying Wyeth for up to $70 billion. How will this help the nation? How will this expensive merger lower drug prices when Pfizer is carrying an additional $70 billion debt? Of course they will have to raise drug prices to cover the costs of this debt.

and then there is Merck buying up Schering for $41 billion. More debt to pile on the back of your prescription.

[alfredo]

11. If you are a veteran, sign up at the VA. My medicine is $8. All other care

is free.

[lsewpershad]

13. Co-pay can change with notice

Not so long ago the co=pay for a med that I take daily was $20 for a month's supply. Now I have to pay $40. I wonder why. Maybe the drug now cost more to produce or we are living in a world filled with thieves.

[lsewpershad]

15. My mistake

Without notice.

[Evoman]

21. You weren't too hard on the Pharmacy clerk, where you?

I work at a pharmacy part-time, and customers often get angry when they have to pay a lot for drugs. Most times we are very understanding, but sometimes people cross the line and abuse the pharmacy techs and pharmacists and that's just not cool.

However, I do understand what your going through....we see it all the time, and it makes you feel terrible when people can't afford drugs they really need.

[debbierlus]

23. I was nice to the pharmacy tech - I was just disgusted with the cost of the drug

She agreed with me, and our interaction was fine. I know that she had absolutely nothing to do with it. I can only imagine what the pharmacy staff must see and how bad they must feel about it all.

[Raster]

24. Healthcare insurance organizations = parasites.

Any questions?

[truedelphi]

25. Sorry for your pain Debbierlus

But some of us have no pain. Take, for instance, the head of one of the top healthcare insurance companies in our country. For years his company has been denying the mid-sized Rhode island hpospital the 10% increase of payments from the HMO headquarter that the hospital needs to do a good job of patient care.

His salary is equivalent or slightly more than the 3300 employees' salaries at that hospital should they all be tallied up together!

[autorank]

27. It's such a hardship k*r

The drug manufacturers have this wacky formula for assessing development costs that includes everything spent in relation to the drug, including marketing costs in some cases.

When an essential drug costs $222 in co pay, the actual cost could be between $450 and $1000 assuming
a 50% or 20% copay. This means many won't get it at all.

Time to fix this, real soon!

[defendandprotect]

28. Sounds like that shold all be in an e-mail to the White House . . .

and your members of Congress, etal --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Outrageous . . . !!!

We need to get control over these drug companies!!!

[unblock]

30. i now have a "high deductible" plan.

which basically means i pay out of pocket for the first $4,000 of medical care -- meds, tests, office visits, whatever. only after i hit $4,000 in a year do i get to "only" pay co-pays and such for the rest of the year.

i do save a bit on the premium, of course, but mostly it just masks how much premiums in general have gone up.

[Mojorabbit]

31. I have medicare

and a MS med I take went up on the copay to 800$ a month. I stopped it. Told hubby I'd rather take the money and make a trip to Paris.

[Duppers]

33. Hollywood to take on big pharma's greed

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960655.html?categoryid=14&cs=1


"Possible Side Effects" will have a two-pronged focus. In addition to exploring the dysfunctional family dynamics of the main characters, potential skein will examine the politics, research, bureaucracy, miraculous cures and greed that accompany the pharmaceutical industry's search for the next billion-dollar drug.

(Tim Robbins)

[Lisa0825]

34. I know this won't solve the bigger problem...

but you can try contacting the manufacturer or http://www.freemedicineprogram.org/

[area51]

36. Kick on this life-and-death issue.

Lack of accessible/affordable healthcare seems to be this country's form of population control.

[knitter4democracy]

37. Last week, same thing here. Four hundred dollars.

The asthma med is one I have to have. The antibiotic was the only one that worked last time I had this infection, so I had to have that. Four hundred bucks.

We have a $2400 deductible, and it starts at the new year every year. We're still in that period, so we have to pay top dollar for everything until we get there.

[debbierlus]

44. They are price gouging the American people to the economic bankruptcy of our entire society

[tblue37]

38. I had to refuse a drug that would have cost me a $178 co-pay--and I actually have

better insurance than most. But I could not afford that $178--and certainly could not continue to afford it, even if I had been willing to pay it for one month. But as my condition is chronic. . . . well, I am not buying that drug.

[Lorien]

40. Same here. I don't take any drugs anymore for pain, depression

ADD or any other chronic condition that I have. The costs exceed what I can afford. I suspect that millions are in the same boat, and I really feel for those with life threatening conditions who cannot afford NOT to take their drugs!

[DemReadingDU]

42. I wonder if drugs are becoming more expensive because...

Well, with more people losing jobs and healthcare, I wonder if the pharmas are charging more for the drugs to offset those who are no longer buying them?

It's becoming a vicious cycle - can't buy meds because too expensive, more people assessed a higher price which they can't afford, so pharms charge even more because more people can't afford the meds. I wonder when none of us will be able to afford prescriptions?

[mainer]

47. Doctors often have no idea of a drug's cost. You should tell him/her

just so your doc knows, for future reference. He may choose a cheaper alternative next time.

[Naturyl]

48. When did "co-pays" become commonplace, anyway?

I don't remember hearing anything about them years ago, and I don't like the whole idea. "Co-pay" smacks of the whole illegitimate, flim-flam "personal responsibility" double-talk that is used to offload responsibility from companies and societies to individuals. Why is there any "co-pay" at all for an insured person? What does "insurance" actually mean when you're paying big chunks of the expense yourself? How did people swallow this to begin with?

My Medicaid even has a "co-pay" on it now. I couldn't care less about spending the three dollars, but it does amuse me that they feel the need to make sure I chip in that utterly meaningless amount, as if it's some issue of morality.

[totodeinhere]

50. Sadly, a lot of Americans are dying because they cannot afford needed medications.

It's a national disgrace, especially since these same meds are a lot cheaper in other countries.

[burythehatchet]

53. Patients also need to ask tough questions of their prescribing physicians

How much physicians receive from PharmaInc. is never quite clear. Besides just the dinners and the boondoggle conferences, I certainly would not be surprised if some even stoop to cash rebates.

I have had doctors who prescribe new meds without giving any consideration for their relative effectiveness compared to generics. Do not assume that prescribing physicians do not have other interests.

[Vroomfondel]

55. Obama has already caved to Big Pharma

The hope of single-payer healthcare is one of the major reasons that I voted for Obama. He's already derailed any hope of that happening, and he hasn't yet been in office for 90 days. I have little hope for the rest of his presidency. As Bill Hicks said, (paraphrasing) 'Those who run things probably took him into a dimly lit room the day after inauguration and showed him a film of the Kennedy Assassination from an angle never previously seen, and asked him..."any questions?"' I have little hope left for this country.

[spinbaby]

58. I have a relative with prostate cancer

He had a choice between a $3500 injection every couple of months or castration. The drug company had him literally by the balls.

[elfkunkel]

59. Pricing...

Apparently, my doctor and I misunderstood. We setup the number of pills I receive for my fibro/depression/thyroid based on my next month's appointment.

Since March has 31 days, and I was seeing him on Day 32, he wrote me a script for 31 days.

When I called the pharmacy to find out my cost, and my "co-pay" was $372.98, I freaked out. A call to Humana explained their mindset: Humana Medicare only considered a month 30 days and Day 31 was equal to a new month--and an additional copay; so I called the pharmacist and asked him to please redo the scripts to fit 30 days.

He asked why, and I explained it--he looked up the records, and noted they had nailed me in January as well for the extra day. He redid the prescription and at least paying it this time didn't totally break me.

**Of course, when I got them home, I found the Effexor XR 150 mg bottle had only 29 pills, and that 5 of my 5mg. methadone were missing. Not an unusual happening, unfortunately.**

[old mark]

60. My wife has Hep C. The bill for ONE MONTH of interferon treatments

was over $1500, and the treatment lasted for 18 months.
It did not work.

mark