Regimens: Drug Samples Found to Affect Spending

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

No way!!!! I thought the drug companies provided free samples so poor people could have access to vital medicines?!?!

Not-so-surprisingly, it has also recently been found that patients with insurance receive free samples more often than the uninsured. Free samples from the doctor's office come out of the marketing fund, fyi.

http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-gets-free-samples-not-needy.html
 
I love my Lipitor flashlight, but every lipitor flashlight given to a doctor or pharmacy student, could be better invested in making it less costly for seniors and the uninsured who need it. Advertising is important, but too great a proportion of investment goes into it versus research and development, and drug availability to the poor.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Clearly the samples are laced with chemicals that make the patient dependant on the medication.
 
yup, and for that reason I often turned down samples. If it was a one-time thing (I tried Relpax) or starting a new med that we were going to titrate up in a week I would take just what I needed. But it seemed wrong for me to take samples if there are people out there who truly can't afford their drugs.
 
yup, and for that reason I often turned down samples. If it was a one-time thing (I tried Relpax) or starting a new med that we were going to titrate up in a week I would take just what I needed. But it seemed wrong for me to take samples if there are people out there who truly can't afford their drugs.

:thumbup: I'm going to turn over a new leaf and not accept free samples or gifts from pharmaceutical companies. This one pharmacist I work with knows like every rep on a 1st name basis and spends a half hour chatting with them.
 
:thumbup: I'm going to turn over a new leaf and not accept free samples or gifts from pharmaceutical companies. This one pharmacist I work with knows like every rep on a 1st name basis and spends a half hour chatting with them.

Heck no, we're underpaid enough. I want my lipitor flashlight, Viagra ballpoint pen, OxyContin post-it pad, and free seafood dinners.

My sister is a drug rep for Pfizer, I had dinner with her the other day, but I paid. hahah

But in all seriousness...big pharma needs to make a profit. if it doesn't, it can't innovate. Unless you're calling for a major federal subsidy for research (which, there already is for other things), these companies need to make money. I don't see a problem with their marketing tactics.

At the end of the day, a willing patient willingly pays the co-pay while their insurance willingly covers drug X after their doctor willingly writes the script. I don't see a problem here.
 
Heck no, we're underpaid enough. I want my lipitor flashlight, Viagra ballpoint pen, OxyContin post-it pad, and free seafood dinners.

My sister is a drug rep for Pfizer, I had dinner with her the other day, but I paid. hahah

But in all seriousness...big pharma needs to make a profit. if it doesn't, it can't innovate. Unless you're calling for a major federal subsidy for research (which, there already is for other things), these companies need to make money. I don't see a problem with their marketing tactics.

At the end of the day, a willing patient willingly pays the co-pay while their insurance willingly covers drug X after their doctor willingly writes the script. I don't see a problem here.

... and the pharmacy UNwillingly accepts $1.00 for despensing drug X... :D :(
 
... and the pharmacy UNwillingly accepts $1.00 for despensing drug X... :D :(

Hah not necessarily. We tried to bill an insurance that CVS had dropped its contract with due to low reimbursement rates the other day. Soooo...no, the answer is willingly.

Now, if you're talking federal programs...different story.
 
But in all seriousness...big pharma needs to make a profit. if it doesn't, it can't innovate. Unless you're calling for a major federal subsidy for research (which, there already is for other things), these companies need to make money. I don't see a problem with their marketing tactics.
What have they innovated lately? It just seems like they rehash or deviate existing products to make their profit.

What comes to mind...
Fexmid- 7.5mg of Cyclobenzaprine... big deal, just take one and a half 5mg and we'll call it a day without paying for a brand name
Naprelan- 375mg controlled release... hmmm... I can buy Aleve over-the-counter, and I can take one every 12 hours which equals 24 hours of relief
Factive- at $29/pill, I don't see the benefit over Levaquin or generic Cipro

Don't even get me started on Veramyst, Solodyn, or Xyzal.
 
But in all seriousness...big pharma needs to make a profit. if it doesn't, it can't innovate.

If their products worked so well they wouldn't need to advertise. The very fact that they have to spend billions of dollars on advertising to convince people to buy their product speaks volumes about their motives. If Congress simply banned the sale of prescription data a lot would change.


I hurt my back, the PA gave me some free samples of Skelaxin and a script for a 10 day supply. This after I mentioned twice I didn't have insurance. I call around, every place was $100+. I call the doctor's office back and ask them to fax a script into my pharmacy for carisoprodol. $4. This kind of bull**** is why more and more pharmacy benefits managers are pushing step therapy.
 
You may find this documentary interesting:

Big Money, Big Pharma

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh99CN5tLrc

For the other parts, click on the part you want in the Related Videos section on the right hand side of the page.

Happy watching!
 
Top