Uninsured Americans cannot afford many medications

I went to the doctor recently and got a new prescription.

The doctor was kind enough to give me some free samples, and a voucher that I could redeem to fill the prescription once at no cost. In the future, it will cost me $50 if I decide to refill it. If I didn’t have pharmaceutical benefits through my insurance coverage, the medication would set me back about $500 for a month’s supply. For those of you doing the math, yes, that’s $6,000 a year. Suffice it to say that I wouldn’t be filling the prescription. And that’s exactly what many Americans do.

For many low-income uninsured Americans, a number of important medications are out of reach because they are simply unaffordable. These are medications that treat chronic diseases like hypertension, high cholesterol, and other common illnesses. They are effective medications that can make a huge difference in a person’s quality of life–including whether or not they die an avoidable death. In a show of good faith, most pharmaceutical manufacturers provide access to no-cost or reduced-cost brand name medications (the ones they manufacture, of course) to this “gap” population. The trouble is, few people know about these programs, which offer tremendous assistance, but require people to jump through a number of application hoops to qualify for the cheap or, in some cases, free meds.

Dr. Heather Whitley has an article out in the latest issue of The Journal of Rural Health, which attempts to quantify the value of these prescription assistance programs (PAPs) at a clinic in Alabama. Head south from Tuscaloosa, and you’ll find yourself in Hale County–one of the 50 poorest counties in America with an average annual income of $14,927 per person. In Hale County, is a town called Moundville, and it is here that the Moundville Medical Clinic operates with a single physician, a nurse practitioner and a couple of nurses. This is one of those places that most Americans don’t know–or at least really don’t like to acknowledge–exists in the United States. If ever anyone needed help obtaining prescription medication, the patients of the Moundville Medical Clinic would be first in line.

The clinic has a pharmacist who works two days a week to help patients navigate the PAP application process. Costs are offset by charging patients $5 per completed and mailed application. In most cases, that is a small price to pay. Dr. Whitley looked at the data collected by the clinic to assess the value of the program–that is, how much free or reduced-cost medicine were patients getting?–and found that across a two-year period (2007 and 2008), the PAP program at the Moundville Medical Clinic brought in more than $138,000 in free medications.

That’s a lot, yes, but what is even more striking is when you consider that that was only for a total of 31 patients. In other words, each patient received about $4,500 in free medication on average during the study period. That’s a pretty remarkable benefit in return for filling out some complicated paperwork, and it suggests that — until real health reform and cost-control is achieved — clinics that see a number of PAP-eligible patients should strongly consider investing in such programs, even if it means having someone volunteer their time one day a week. The benefits far outweigh the costs, but there are administrative hurdles that must be cleared before the benefits can be accessed.

Brad Wright is a health policy doctoral student who blogs at Wright on Health.

Submit a guest post and be heard.

email

  • Jim

    Medicine on prescription in uk £7.20 per item , free if over 60 .

    • http://Www.twitter.com/alicearobertson Alice

      And some meds are priceless in the UK because you cannot get them if they are not on the list. Some cancer patients even sell their home, then are told they still can’t get the life saving drug. So…lives are cheap along with the meds, and being over sixty means you are expendable.

  • justin

    It sounds like a great program. I would love to give my patients brand name “not-off-patent” meds when needed, but rarely is this the case.

    I’m not sure who is going to pay for the work on the clinic’s end of things, however. It sounds like the clinic is providing this service for nearly free; my guess is it takes more than $5 worth of the pharmacist’s time to figure out these applications. So to me this seems like a huge externality that the clinic is accepting from the pharmaceutical company.

    The real bottom line here is this: there is tiered healthcare in the USA. If you are poor and don’t have insurance, you can often get appropriate meds for free or cheap. But you are unlikely to get name brand “not-off-patent” meds. And this is how it should be. People act like the new medications are “needs”, but really they are wants. Guess what anti-psychotic people took before risperidone…haldol/perphenazine/trifluoperazine. All old meds. Guess what anti-psychotic people took before haldol/p/t?…they didn’t have any. And people lived their lives. If you can’t get your patients by on generic meds you are doing something wrong. Very few patients need $4500 dollars worth of medications in a year.

    Just because it exists does not mean it is needed or that it should be provided for free. And the clinic is making a business mistake by helping patients in this way. Although it is the humanistic thing to do. They should focus more on prescribing generic medications that you can get at walmart for $4 a month.

  • Max

    That’s why I don’t give out expensive samples. Patients can’t afford them when the sample runs out. Why test drive a Mercedes when you can only afford a Malibu? I tell them, you’ll love this sample but you said you can’t afford it so why fall in love with the Mercedes? Take the Malibu.

  • http://fertilityfile.com IVF-MD

    This is a statement of a fact of life, namely that whenever there is scarcity of a resource, whether it be a drug, a service or any other commodity, there has to be a way to ration who gets priority.
    So there is scarcity of drug A. If there were no scarcity of it, then everybody could have an unlimited supply of drug A, even people who can afford it, even people who can’t afford it, even people who desperately need it, even people who have no need for it. But because there is a scarcity, not everybody who actually wants it (or needs it) is getting it. So what are some different ways to ration it? Well, we could do it via pricing. So that every person speaks with his wallet to decide how much he wants this drug over something else that he could spend his money on. OK, so you say, that some people can’t afford $500 a month for this drug. OK, fine. So for those people, there are at least two scenarios. One (Scenario A) is that they don’t earn $500 a month to spend on anything. Another scenario (Scenario B) is that they earn over $500 a month, but after things that they MUST pay for (food, shelter, taxes) and things that they CHOOSE to pay for (cable TV, iPhone, beer, cigarettes, movie tickets, dining out) they have no money left over for the drug. So what is the best solution overall for scenario A? What is the best solution overall for scenario B? My argument is that in either case, voluntary consensual solutions (charity, lifting of restrictions to allow the price of the drug to come down, tax relief to revive the economy to allow the people who need the drug to earn more productively) are vastly superior to ones that involves forced non-consensual theft of money with inefficient redistribution by uninvested third parties. I’m open to hearing anything that could help change my mind on this. I’ve been learning and discussing this for many years already and am always eager to learn more from different viewpoints.

    • gzuckier

      But there is NOT a scarcity of Drug A, or B. Maybe Drug Z, but the jury’s still out on that one.
      The thing is that pharmaceutical manufacturing is the textbook case of an industry where the fixed costs are almost all; i.e., the first pill of Drug A costs $50,000,000, but the second and all succeeding pills cost less than a buck each. That’s why twenty years later the generic is selling for less than a buck; it’s not because the prices of the raw ingredients, the chemical synthesis, the compounding and packaging hardware, or the labor involved have dropped that much in the interval. Pharmaceutical companies are full of very skilled statistical analysts, some of whom spend their time estimating exactly where the peak occurs on the curve of total profit vs price per pill. And that’s why they can profitably sell the same pill for vastly different amounts in different countries, based on what whoever is paying for it in each country will pay. They don’t mind knocking out a few zillion extra for free for folks who could never pay for the pills under any circumstances, that’s not very expensive for them; their nightmare is that some of those pills will get diverted into a black market that will cut into their regular sales, that’s what would cost them.

      • http://fertilityfile.com IVF-MD

        You are right. I can’t see any reason Americans are not allowed to access drugs that are sold in another country. Morally, people have the right to choose their own risk as it affects themselves, rather than to have their whole lives controlled, including their choice of self-risk. If an American wants to gamble getting unknown quality drugs from Europe, let them do their due diligence in researching the safety. Those Americans who choose the added “safety” of government watchdogs can pay more for the US version. Those who are willing to gamble the different (not necessarily worse) quality-control of European, Asian or other foreign pharmacies should have the right. I personally, may choose to buy some medications that I take myself from the US and others from Canada etc. It should be each person’s choice.

      • http://www.twitter.com/alicearobertson Alice

        Some of the cost has future lawsuits figured in. Some are based on what the American public is willing to pay for a good night’s sleep or pleasure!

        Most people on this board know I am angry at an arrogant doctor who didn’t practice preventive medicine. Not sure he should be practicing any medicine. Because of this cancer broke through and spread into my daughter’s lymph nodes. Preventive medicine? You bet it’s preventative! Early diagnosis? Yep, that works too.

        Research that proves otherwise? That depends on whether you are Sherlock who used inductive logic, or Watson who used deductive logic, or a researcher whose income depends on government grants and you use no logic.

  • Bill

    It’s a shame real health reform in the United States is impossible so long as the “haves” (including those on Medicare) view the “have nots” as unworthy of affordable healthcare. Unfortunately, if every person eligible for the prescription assistance programs applied for their meds, these programs would quickly cease to exist; the pharmas don’t have enough good will to extend to tens of millions.

    • http://Www.twitter.com/alicearobertson Alice

      My friend was able to get the pharmaceutical company to provide her meds. She was low income with no insurance. Sometimes we need to find a new path…to keep trying. Same with insurers who know denying claims is profitable…if you fight, and make sure no stone remains unturned you often find help. But so often Americans have the entitlement mindset that if we do not get service we throw our hands up in despair. Their are avenues that can mean a harder road…more work…more accountability….but some will not go there. Some can’t…..some would profit….but they will not know because some just give up way too early or easily.

  • Anonymous

    These are medications that treat chronic diseases like hypertension, high cholesterol, and other common illnesses.

    Then again, should expensive medication be the first resort for trying to solve problems that can be solved by cleaning up one’s diet and including some exercise in one’s daily life?

    • gzuckier

      No true American would curb their appetites or change their lifestyle in order to refrain from killing themselves, rather than pay somebody for some sort of magic fix; I believe the Constitution states that we don’t have to. Or maybe the Bible.

  • http://www.atlas.md Josh

    Hi Brad, I’m just curious, what is the medication you referenced? I’m a concierge family physicians with a large number of uninsured patients but i offer wholesale options for all of my patients. I’d like to quote the medications you mentioned because short of a few things like inhaled steroids, there’s great options on the walmart list or via wholesale.

    A good example is simvastatin: wholesale $6/3 month, generic $80/3 months, Namebrand $480/3 month. If you referenced a similar drug in the beginning of your article, the “true cost” could be as little as $24/year…I’m just saying…

  • Finn

    Sure, @Justin, generic meds are wonderful–when they’re available. Not all conditions can be adequately treated or controlled by generics, and not all patients can take or tolerate the generic option. Where’s your evidence for the notion that patients “want” brand-name drugs that they can’t afford when they only “need” generics that they can afford?

    • justin

      Finn,
      I’m arguing that all drugs are wanted. None are needed, as in, no one has an inherent right to a drug just because they exist.

      We get into these backwards debates about the cost of healthcare and expensive medications, but in reality we have lots of great drugs that are generic. The expensive drugs would not exist if a pharmaceutical company did not produce them, can we agree on that? But people somehow twist their reasoning around to think that they are somehow owed a medication, regardless of expense, simply because it exists.

      I am not arguing that one drug may be more or less effective/tolerable than another; I think it’s obvious that drugs are not equal and all people would prefer to be on the most effective drug with the least side effects. I’m arguing that due to the cost of medications, and we’re talking about reality here because medicine costs actual money, people need to realize they are not entitled to the most expensive drugs, even if those drugs are the most effective with the least side effects.

  • doc99
    • http://fertilityfile.com IVF-MD

      Yep. Three of the drugs most commonly prescribed to our fertility patients are $4 at Wal-Mart. We always tell our patients to shop around because it’s often cheaper to buy it for cash at Wal-Mart than it is to get it with your $15 insurance co-pay elsewhere. Patients come back and tell us how surprised they are that it would have cost them even more to use their insurance than to just pay for it with the change they have in their pocket. Of course they don’t take into account the shampoo, potato chips and People magazine that they impulse-buy on their way to getting their $4 meds. :)

  • Cheapo

    I think too many physicians write for branded medications for really no real reason at all, why start people on crestor 5mg? zocor 20 is good enough, nexium 40, Nasonex? why be so quick to put an outpatient URI without a fever on levaquin? Micardis? how about some lisinopril, wait for them to cough or (or get angioedema) I think we as physicians can deal with over 90% of medication issues with the 10 dollar Rx list from places like walmart and stop and shop, it’s really up to the physicians, to help people save money, the drug companies bring in the same pasta every week, and the reps aren’t even cute blonds any more, plus there are no more pens no more hand soaps, and no free baseball tickets, in other words the drug companies give us nothing, so as you can see even the most unethical physician should write for generic meds unless absolutely neccessary. A little tounge in cheek for the serious medical discussion

  • Michael F. Mirochna, MD

    I’m sure the folks who are making 14,000 a year are driving around in their mercedes while on their iphones after seeing the latest movie in the theater after having dinner at ruth chris. It seems there’s probably some people who would fit an option C… that really don’t have money after paying all of their necessities.

    There probably are a few conditions that are common that really benefit from expensive branded drugs and asthma is one off the top of my head. Maybe rheumatoid would be another.

    • http://fertilityfile.com IVF-MD

      People have the right to spend their money as they choose. I volunteer in an indigent clinic and see patients with jewelry, breast implants and nice phones and that’s fine. Most likely, they worked hard to earn money to pay for these things and it’s their privilege to purchase them just as it is my privilege to donate my time to helping them. Both are fine because they are voluntary and consensual choices and not forced. The problem that we need to address is the non-consensual taking of people’s earnings by force which leads to all of us being less able to earn, leading to greater poverty, improper incentives and overall lower quality of life in this country. It’s already happening and unless we get some turnaround to relieve this, it could well get worse. Let’s hope not.

      • Michael F. Mirochna, MD

        our resident clinic has the indigent population as well, and while I have yet to see much expensive jewelry or augmentation, I see tons of cell phones and occasionally there are some really nice (30-50K) cars out in the parking lot. I agree that folks can spend their money how they want. Maybe we disagree on the number of people who spend their disposable income on material items rather than on meds they “need.” I appreciate your other comments on the board.

      • http://Www.twitter.com/alicearobertson Alice

        Another problem is with the healthcare bill expensive drugs and treatments that are the most innovative will go down the tubes. So people focus on treating the masses…. the focus is good, but not broad enough. They forget the consequences, the lives that will be lost when quality is lessened. If we squash out the future of innovations it may be our own cancer, or stroke, or heart attack that kills us prematurely because we didn’t see the whole picture of the consequences of the limitations we supported.

        Do we really want to give up the costly research for cures to cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease? Canada spends little money on research, and we spend the money which Canadians gain new information and drugs to help their own patients (with little sacrifice monetarily or sweat equity ). That is great that lives are saved around the world from our expensive research…so if we gain what we think we want… think of the lives we save when we encourage the free market, and research that leads to better detection, and better treatments, and better drugs. Yes, it is expensive, but personally, I want to make sure we do not stop progress,

    • gzuckier

      A Learned Old pharmacist of my acquaintance once mentioned to me cardiac meds and psychotropics as two classes where he’d be wary about switching to generics.

  • SmartDoc

    Just use the Walmart Super Discount list: $4 for 30 days, $10 for a 90 day supply. With no insurance. Best deal in America.

    http://www.walmart.com/cp/PI-4-Prescriptions/1078664

  • http://drpullen.com Ed Pullen

    I really find the whole coupon for meds disgusting. The whole concept of copayments is to give patients an incentive not to use expensive drugs. Now with coupons, the patient has less or no incentive not to use expensive drugs, so the “system” pays for the expensive med, all of our health premiums and the whole cost of health care goes up, and the mess continues. I find the whole concept bordering on fraudulent. I just don’t use them, and tell every rep I have to see exactly that. Samples were bad, coupons even worse.

  • http://www.brightonyourhealth.com Mary Brighton

    Read all the comments…many valid points..would like to add mine too.
    We all need to promote our “personal health reform”, to take better control of our health (and the health of our children) so not to need these medications that treat “lifestyle” diseases.
    But, deciding whether or not to take control of your health is a choice that we cannot force people to take.
    I feel empathy for those who do need medications and have to choose between buying food or medicine.
    However, guess who pays in the end? YOU AND ME…
    Because when that person chooses not to medically (or through lifestyle changes) take care of themselves OR they cannot afford their medications…they have a higher chance to get that stroke, heart attack, diabetes-related medical issues; and these costs are unestimable.
    I should know, my father had a brainstem stroke due to him ignoring his health…His medical bills have depassed 1.5 million dollars (this is what is on the health insurance statements) in less than 2 years. Nevermind the costs to our family which our emotional, financial and unestimated amounts of stress.
    This is why I am trying to shout out to everyone (via my blog) to strive for personal health reform…and take your medication…hey, your life and others depend on it.
    and by the way, in France (where I live) medications are also much cheaper in America and are reimbursed 65% by the government health insurance. The other 35% is usually picked up by a complementary insurance.

    • http://Www.twitter.com/alicearobertson Alice

      In France you are paying for those meds weekly via the 21% tax on your paycheck, then the rest of the taxes after that. Unless you are working for a corporation providing you with nice perks while advocating another?

      Personal responsibility is good and well…but people will still get sick with cancer. My daughter has cancer because somehow radiation was absorbed by her body. I am guessing it was at a dentist’s office. She doesn’t eat meat, didn’t get immunizations, exercises and still….we are battling cancer.

      • http://www.brightonyourhealth.com Mary Brighton

        Dear Alice,
        Sorry to hear about your daughter. Although I have never walked in your shoes, I do know how difficult, stressful and devastating to have someone close to you so sick.
        If you are employed in France, yes, a hugh bundle goes to the government. (like 25% off paycheck)…If you are retired, unemployed, poor , without salary you are still entitled to the reduced medicine costs. But, more shockily is the hugh debt the governmental run “securite sociale” has accumulated to keep their citizens healthy.
        But I will add that the medicines here, even those without prescription seem much less expensive than what I could find in America. I see the real costs on the package, I know the real costs in America. Major differences.

        My point in my comment above is that people shouldn’t have to choose whether to eat or take their medicines to stay healthy, and also that lifestyle choices have lead to medical issues that could have been prevented by alterning one’s lifestyle. There are, of course, sad stories of medical issues that are not lifestyle related. Hope all goes ok for your daughter.

        Mary Brighton

  • Finn

    “I’m arguing that all drugs are wanted. None are needed, as in, no one has an inherent right to a drug just because they exist.”

    @Justin, a little more precision in language would go a long way. “Needed” is not a synonym for “entitled to.” We all need food but none of us is entitled to it.

    Do you actually have any evidence that patients want brand-name drugs that they can’t afford when generics that they could afford would treat their conditions adequately?

  • http://www.somebodyhealme.com Diana Lee

    I’ve definitely had the experience of seeing docs who are quick to churn out a script for a name brand med when a generic is available that works just as well. Luckily as I’ve become a more educated patient I’ve learned to ask about this when we talk about a new med.

    Unfortunately I also live with a number of chronic health issues that are best treated by newer (read expensive) brand name drugs. Since I have good prescription coverage under a Part D Medicare plan it’s no sweat for me to pay for the options that handle my conditions the best, but I do worry about the situation for people who aren’t as lucky as I am. For instance, being on Januvia for diabetes has made a night and day difference in my blood glucose numbers. And if a slightly expensive pill can do that for others, why in the world aren’t we making sure they get it now rather than paying for the horrendously expensive complications associated with poorly controlled diabetes? It just doesn’t make sense.

  • http://www.drjoe.net.au Dr Joe

    There is an elephant in the room here.How many expensive medications are for conditions (eg diabetes) which could be treated by changes in lifestyle at minimal or no cost? Lets not even start on preventing the need for drugs via better nutrition and regular exercise.

  • http://www.nurturedmoms.com Heather Johnson/ Nurtured Moms

    Generic prescriptions are not always the answer. Take Wellbutrin or example — it costs well over $100 a month, but a prescription for generic bupropion is still close to $90 a month. Out of reach for many people without prescription coverage.

Trending