Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry

August 02, 2002


The problem defined - many patients cannot afford their medications

As a physician, we must all learn the lesson. Knowing what to do is just the first step to treating a patient. Next one needs the patient to want to participate in their care. Many patients just do not want to take the medication, either because I did not explain it properly, or because they do not accept our medical model. Finally, the patient must have the resources to obtain the medication. Increasingly, that is the problem. Danger of Unaffordable Drugs: Older Americans Risking Their Lives to Save Money on Medicine. All physicians who have asked know this problem. The reporters did not have to search long to find this example.

Some will say that the pharmaceutical industry provides drugs to the needy. Cold Fury pointed out a web page devoted to those programs - Needymeds.com ...because everyone should take their medicine. Unfortunately, these programs are a pain in the butt for physicians and their staff. Each company has its own form, and criteria for inclusion. They generally mail the drugs to the physician's office, turning us into a dispensary. Read the article - it describes the problem well. It does not give a solution. That is realistic.

Posted by on August 02, 2002 06:34 AM | TrackBack




Comments:


oH-oh. It's your turn on the griddle, Doc.

In re things like needymeds com, "Unfortunately, these programs are a pain in the butt for physicians and their staff."

Gee, I turn suicidal without my meds but getting them is a problem for you.

I've had doctors refuse to get involved even when I offered to do as much of the paperwork as I was capable and pay a stipend to get a signature. On the other hand, I must admit these same docs were willing to give me a month's worth of samples.

OK, the process could certainly be simpler, but please do not ignore it for those patients who are in a real financial bind.

Posted by: John Anderson on August 4, 2002 10:11 PM



I do not ignore the programs, but they are a pain in the butt. Unlike lawyers who would bill for the time involved (do not ever call a lawyer, the meter is ticking), doctors currently only charge for visits. That is why patients like telephone conversations, email and forms. We fill out forms at OUR COST. In the indigent clinic that we run, we have a pharmacist who fills out all the forms, which I then sign each week. We make the effort, but it is difficult and requires a major time committment from someone. What I am arguing for is a standard simple form to increase access to these important programs.

Posted by: db on August 6, 2002 11:52 AM



OK, I got over-heated. And I agree that the time and effort involved is ridiculous. Especially since, while there two sites I know on the net, both basically point to individual companies and tell you to contact them. One charges a $5 fee for this...

I suppose if the companies got together to establish a single clearing point, it would be seen as collusion and/or monopoly. And having the patient get the forms, fill out what they can (come on, they do know their names; but then, I admit some cannot read/write) and carry it to their doctor...

Come to that, why should it be any more difficult than the normal prescription process? If a doctor can call in a prescription to a drugstore, why not to a service for the indigent?

Of course, that last would have its own bureaucratic pitfalls. One program I tried to get into needed proof that my income wss less than a specified, with pay stubs and bank accounts. I had no income; how do you prove that?

Posted by: John Anderson on August 7, 2002 12:22 AM



Perhaps we could set up a central clearing system. You would only have to qualify one time for these programs, then the physician would write a presciption to send to the clearing house. The multiple complex forms are the problem (for both patients and physicians).

Posted by: db on August 7, 2002 05:56 AM



you know, db, i am starting to wonder: just what (really) *is the population who can't afford their drugs? for whom, and how many, is it "drugs or food"?

exclude your indigent clinic: we know they're in trouble, and medicaid (in my state) picks up their prescriptions.

but, to put it nastily, are there not a fair number out there who would rather pay their money for the (lots of) gas for their winnebagos, than for their drugs? after all, they can probably bully a subsidy from the government for the drugs that they can never get for recreation. (see kinsley)

among the problems with the "compromise" recently gone down in the senate, the expenditure considered "catastrophic" was too *low for many of us. a *lot of us can afford $4000 for something as important as drugs, even if we put aside some luxury to pay it.

and for others of us, $4000 *is catastrophic. you've just got to draw the borders much differently than they're contemplating.

if i have to hear one more time about dick gephardt's mother not being able to afford her timoptic without his help, i will have to ask him why, in heaven's name, someone making his money, in his position, should *not pay for his own mother's drugs?

Posted by: katmar on August 8, 2002 12:09 AM



First, the indigent clinic we run is for the working poor and those who do not qualify for medicaid.

The biggest group who cannot buy their medicines have Medicare (which currently does not pay for medicines). They live on fixed incomes and really are choosing between food and medications. I believe this is truly a major problem - that is what my personal experience with patients tells me.

Posted by: db on August 8, 2002 05:13 AM






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?






It would be nice if everybody could find a doctor with half the common sense of this one. - Junkyardblog

An academic general internist comments on medical issues and the current state of medicine.

I reserve the right to be blatantly opinionated; you should take the right to criticize me!!



Try advanced site search!



The Sunday Issue of the Week continues. This feature will challenge me to carefully ponder an issue that I've referenced and commented on recently.

Current hot issues:

• Malpractice crisis
• Resident work hours
• Pharmaceutical industry
• Obesity and fitness