Wouldn't Big Pharma want no prescriptions? So more people could buy their product?
Would more people buy their products? I don't know. I recently read Clifford Winston's book on government intervention and it seems that government mandating prescriptions results in people becoming overconfident in dosage and actually taking more than necessary. This, of course, doesn't make a complete case against prescriptions, but it's something to consider.
Keep in mind that limited supply (possible byproduct of prescription requirements) in tandem with restriction on competition (as a result from patent laws) might lead to higher profit margins as well.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Keep in mind that limited supply (possible byproduct of prescription requirements) in tandem with restriction on competition (as a result from patent laws) might lead to higher profit margins as well."
Why not have restriction on competition and no prescriptions? Wouldn't that be best for a big pharma company with friends in high places?
if people did not use prescriptions, what would they use? i figure a patiant would want a prescription and a company would want to cater to the needs of the customer. a insurence company would likely want people on their plan to use prescriptions.
"if people did not use prescriptions, what would they use?"
the doctor would tell them what to buy and they would buy it at the store or internet.
wouldn't big pharma want to sell their drugs without prescriptions? so more people could buy their drugs at stores and online?
Maybe, but I'm not sure (just speculating), the AMA and the major pharmaceutical companies have a symbiotic relationship. By continuing to only allow these drugs to be purchased after being prescribed by a licensed doctor, the AMA ensures an artificially high demand for doctors. And since doctors will prescribe the drugs for their patients, the pharmaceutical companies see an artificially high demand, not to mention the "this-drug-must-be-safe-my-doctor-prescribed-it" effect, which is certainly beneficial for pharmaceutical companies. Again, I'm just speculating. Also worth considering: the role the FDA is playing.
that is a prescription
im a bit confused to if you mean a certain type of prescription. right now the doctor prescribes medicine, i go to bartells drug store and buy the prescription.
I'd guess when we are speaking of a prescription, we are talking about the legal document that a doctors gives that enables one to legally buy, possess, and use a specific medicine, and only in the doctor's specified dosage. I doubt anyone here is using prescription in the sense of "a recommendation."
big pharma doesnt matter with prescriptions, whatever their opinion is wont change anything.
prescriptions are the monopoly of doctors and the state. They have to have it or their demand goes way down. Just think how many doctors and government jobs would lose their jobs. it would end the war on drugs. i would never goto a doc if i could just get meds without prescriptions. i would WebMD it and pick up whatever i needed. Medical schools would begin to fail too.
Think how many nonlife threatening sicknesses you have had and you went to a doctor for...now you wont have to.
Pharmacist here. I think drug companies very much want prescriptions because that is the only reason some of their products ever get dispensed. If you came to my pharmacy with just a diagnosis and not a written prescription, we could treat you much more cheaply than if we have to do exactly what the well intended Dr. prescribes. The Dr. very rarely considers cost, and that is what I always consider. The way it is now, if Dr. writes for Nexium, that's what you get 90% of the time. If you came up to me and said you had heartburn and I could sell you anything I wanted, you would never get Nexium, but we could get you the same results. Nexium (esomeprazole) costs 200 bucks, but Prilosec (omeprazole), which is just Nexium minus the minor tweak, costs 10 bucks. Insurances and prescriptions greatly distort what is best for the patient.
And Grant is correct, I would put many primary care doctors out of business if I could dispense what I wanted.
without government regulation of prescriptions, i think there would still be private companies or familes regulating what gets sold to whom. it would create more of a competitive regulation market i think
if i was a insurence company, i would want to pay for the 10 doller and the person can pay 190 out of their own pocket if they want the more expensive medicine that cures the same problem.
i figure insurence companies want to have costs as low as posible, pharmacy companies want to make as much money as possible, and the insurence could act as a check on doctors or pharmacies that try and get the most profit out of a patiant rather than cure the patiant at the most effective cost for the patiant. that seems to be about trust, taking medicine makes people vulnerable as people are submitting to recommendations of others. it seems it would take a lot for all these companies to callude to make the patiant pay higher prices that neccicary,
"that is a prescription"
I mean, they could buy it anywhere, without a prescription. You would not need permission to buy the drug from any store. They are free to sell it, and you are free to buy it.
So, some of you are saying :
1) by preventing merchants from freely selling drugs, more drugs will be sold?
2) Or more expensive drugs will be sold?
3) Or both?
answer choice 1 doesn't make logical sense. So I am assuming it is choice 2?
"i figure insurence companies want to have costs as low as posible"
If that were true, then wouldn't insurance companies lobby to get rid of prescription requirements for merchants? maybe they do, I just haven't been paying attention.
I had said, because of the FDA, patent laws, and the AMA, there is possibly an artificially high demand and artificially low supply, leading to artificially high profit margins.
"I had said, because of the FDA, patent laws, and the AMA, there is possibly an artificially high demand and artificially low supply, leading to artificially high profit margins."
I'm sorry. Sometimes I need to write out stuff to wrap my brain around it to fully understand. What you say makes sense.
I'm a slow learner.
In South Africa my family doctor used to stock her own medicine and always used to sell the generic brands. I would imagine without prescriptions the sale of generic medicine would increase and people would be able to bypass the high prices that is often a result of the prescriptions or the artificial scarcity that prescriptions create. As they are that bit more difficult to get they can charge more, if they were readily available they would be cheaper. I think a large portion of the revenue comes from insurance and state paid for medical schemes. Without the prescription model these schemes would be affected.
Often the generic medicines are ridiculously cheaper, in comparison a nasal spray was R60 compared to the branded version of R350.
if costco could sell anything they want, i still think they would self regulate what they sell. i just don't imagine them selling powerful opiates in bulk to children no questions asked for example. it would be interesting to see what stores would carry what. i think the logic of regulation is more than just money though.
insurence wise, i'm mainly thinking about one i would want to be a part of, i would not want to be in a house/business insurence pool with a bunch of meth lab business owners for instance.