Cutting Back On Meds In A Bad Economy
10 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // October 22nd, 2008 // 6:57 am
For the first time in at least a decade, the nation’s consumers are trying to get by on fewer prescription drugs. As people around the country respond to financial and economic hard times by juggling the cost of necessities like groceries and housing, drugs are sometimes having to wait, The New York Times writes.
“People are having to choose between gas, meals and medication,” James King, chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians, who also runs his own practice in Selmer, Tennesse, tells the Times. “I’ve seen patients today who said they stopped taking their Lipitor, their cholesterol-lowering medicine, because they can’t afford it. I have patients who have stopped taking their osteoporosis medication.”
Through August of this year, the number of all prescriptions dispensed in the US was lower than in the first eight months of last year, according to a recent analysis of data from IMS Health, a research firm that tracks prescriptions. Other forces are also in play -safety concerns over some previously popular drugs and the transition of some meds to over-the-counter- but many docs and other experts say consumer belt-tightening is a big factor in the prescription downturn.
“The trend, if it continues, could have potentially profound implications,” the paper notes. “If enough people try to save money by forgoing drugs, controllable conditions could escalate into major medical problems. That could eventually raise the nation’s total health care bill and lower the nation’s standard of living.” And the cutbacks come even as pharma heads toward the ‘generic cliff’ — an approaching period when a number of blockbuster drugs are scheduled to lose patent protection.
Gloria Wofford, 76, of Pittsburgh, tells the paper she recently stopped taking Provigil, prescribed for her problem of falling asleep during the day, because she could no longer afford it after she entered the Medicare doughnut hole. Her Provigil had been costing $1,695 every three months. “I have no idea who could do it,” she tells the Times. “There’s no way I could handle that.”
Lori Stewart of Champaign, Illinois, is trying to decide whether to discontinue her mother’s Alzheimer’s meds, which seem to have only marginal benefit. “The medication is $182 a month,” she tells the Times. “It’s been a very agonizing decision for me. It is literally one-fifth of her income.”
Steve
I am probably different from the rest of you posters, as I am in biotech for the return on my dollar investment.
So, this concerns me as it should for those that don’t have the income to properly take care of themselves.
If the prescription trends are down, they probably will continue so. That cuts the bottom line (profit) for the industry (bio and pharma).
In turn, that hurts Research and Development. The downward trend could very well have dire effects on the future developments of necessary and promising drugs.
The economic situation is certainly blooming into a full fledged deeper recession, although, I do not see a depression.
Probably the first place to start, should be the government, to improve the Part D coverage under Medicare. That specifically means the notorious “doughnut hole”.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
This news is not surprising, the prices of these drugs are always aimed toward what the market will bear, and in these difficult financial times, there is less elasticity.
That being said, I hope that the patients who are cutting back on their drugs are getting the kind of information and guidance they need. It is a shame that people would arbitrarily make this decision without being completely informed of the possible consequences.
On the other hand, if people in general feel that drugs can be one of the places they cut in their household budget, then what does that say about their belief and trust in drugs or the system in general. Are drugs a “nice to have” non essential extra?
It would be interesting to know the rationale behind making that kind of decision.
Lilli
Not all Medications are necessary. Pharmaceutical Companies market their products to make money,regardless if the medications are really needed. Medications like sythyroid are necessary for many women, yet Sythyroid is not marketed like other medications. The problem with medications is that it has become a business and it is not utilized to better the health of the people. Too much medications can cause many health problems.
Patients with medical problems are very frequently misdiagnosed and were given unecessary medications that were dangerous and extremely harmful to their conditions. Medications do help—but the system is to sell medications not to help people. What is more important Healthy People or Healthy investments for the Investors and the Pharamceutical Companies?
Steve
Former and Lilli,
First, most, if not all have sacrificed everything and the medication is the last resort.
“What is more important, Healthy People or Healthy investments”?
Both are important. One obvious reason is, when the shares depreciate, the companies have a more difficult time to access loans of various sizes and shapes.
riv
Steve, Steve, Steve. You’re talking out of your wallet. Bad choice.
I predict a lot of people who when they cut back on their expensive meds, such as Lipitor, find a phalanx of side effects begin to disappear–gastrointestinal, pancreatitis, helicobactor pylori ulcer, GERD, myopathy, depression, thinking and learning problems, memory loss, language loss and dysfunction, dizziness, confusion, transient global amnesia, insommnia, tendinitis; of the hand, knee, ankle, ALS syndrome, erectile dysfunction, ability to do what you’ve always been able to do, like repeat an address, or repair your car because you have to remember things sequentially to do that…all those things your doctor doesn’t think statins can cause, because he or she has been getting his/her drug information from Pharma Guy above.
Hundreds and thousands of people reporting to Dr. Beatrice Golomb’s Statin Effects Study said the day they forgot to take their Lipitor, or couldn’t get their prescription refilled because they had no money, was the day they began to recover.
atlex
The NY Times is way off base in blaming the flattening of prescriptions primarily on the economy. It missed or under-emphasized several key points. 1) The trend (except for the temporary bump due to Part D in 2006 and 2007) was there prior to the downturn in the economy; 2) 2007 and 2008 has been a year where a number of drugs experienced safety scares that drove down utilization significantly (eg, Avandia, Vytorin, Zetia, Chantix); 3) DTC advertising declined significantly earlier this year due to Congressional interactions (eg, Lipitor) leading to a reduction in the prescribing of consumer-driven medications. All of these factors likely have a much greater impact than does the economy (at least thus far). One additional thought–Walmart’s $4 generic program may be drawing an increased percentage of scripts; I believe that IMS does not capture Walmart data.
Lilli
Steve Pharmaceuticals receive many healthy grants from the Government—And if the drug companies stopped false advertising and lobbying there would be billions of dollars for honest research–CEO’S do not need to make almost billions of dollars.
Thank you RIV
for your comment on Statins. Statins have so many adverse events that doctors would not admit too. Peripheral Myopathy leading to Rhbadomyolysis—which affects the kidneys and if not treated causes death. Health Statistics have reported that doctors are not reporting this so there is a not an accurate account of Rhbadomyolysis.
I know becuse my husband was a victim of our corrupt health care system. I spoke to Dr. Beatrice Golomb many times but what good did the $4,000,000 NAtional Health Institute do for the public? As I said before American needs ethical honest medical health care–
steve
Dear Riv,
Good to see another Yahoo (Amgen) poster.
Yes, I do think with my wallet. That’s how I eat, through my investment(s).
Most of the readers know who I am and that I am very interested in the welfare of the ailing population and the price of Amgen. But, I am also a capitalist and like to live a decent life.
I ‘very much agree’ with the contents of your post. Sometimes, the side effects just aren’t worth the value of the prescribed medication.
steve
Lilli,
You make valid points. To me, the whole industry needs a shower without their clothes on. The politics have become very burdensome.
Now, a bio or pharma can pay for a sooner than later review if they (FDA) hire and (bio/pharma) pay the FDA reviewers. I wonder how their experts are chosen? Maybe, I don’t want to know!
Adam J. Fein
Ed,
While things are not great, the New York Times article was written to tell a particular story. The actual IMS data are much more ambiguous and uncertain. See my post “Prescriptions and the Economy: A Contrarian View” on Drug Channels:
http://www.drugchannels.net/2008/10/prescriptions-and-economy-contrarian.html
Regards,
Adam