Wednesday, May 2, 2007

No Free Lunch


Who wouldn't be happy to go to the doctor and receive a free sample of medication? On the surface, a drug sample seems like a present gift-wrapped in blister pack: A sample saves a trip to the pharmacy, it can be taken right away, and, did I mention? It's free. Samples save the insured a co-pay, and for the uninsured, (horror of horrors!) a sample can save a significant wad of cash.

But as an article in The Times reveals, there is no free lunch, even if what's for lunch is just a pill.

Samples come with a hitch. Pharma company sales reps give doctors samples of only the newest, therefore most expensive, drugs on the market. And, because many of these drugs are intended for a lifetime of use, patients have to fork over more money for them in the long run than if they had been prescribed an older, cheaper medication in the first place.

And doctors do hand out samples before prescribing older, cheaper, and even recommended medications. A study published in 2002 found that when doctors treated high blood pressure, their prescribing of "first line" drugs recommended by national guidelines was low until free samples were removed from the office. My hunch is that doctors feel that giving out samples ingratiates themselves to their patients. Afterall, what better way to get friends than to hand out free drugs?

Anyway, next time you're given a sample, you might want to find out what else is on the market for treating the same problem. For example, if you're given a sample of Clarinex for allergies, a tiny bit of research would reveal that it's predecessor, Claritin, is virtually the same drug as Clarinex but because the patent protection was lost on Claritin it's now available cheaply as prescription generic or OTC. Clarinex samples may be free, but Claritin is cheaper in the long run.

Sound like a rip-off? It is. Some healthcare organizations, in Philadelphia, Maine, and California are starting to refuse free samples altogether, or are accepting them only for their, ahem, free clinics.

LINK (The New York Times)

No comments: