momhurts
05-22-2008, 11:18 AM
Hello to all,
I have been one pains meds for a little over a year. Initially prescribed by my specialist and now by a pm doc since Oct. 07. I have always gotten my scripts filled at the same pharmacy(a chain pharmacy) and always receive quality service...no looks or lectures. However at times it is an inconvienence for me to go there, or to deal with the wait times. A new chain opened and the times I have been in the store the pharmacy always appears empty and they have a drive thru service. I was thinking about switching but am afraid that the grass may not be greener...some of you I know have run into your fair share of pharmacy troubles. I am fairly certain, I did not sign a contract...so I am not sure that I am bound by the pm clinic to use the same pharmacy. Just looking for your HO ;) Would you switch?
Also, is it allowed to use the name of the pharmacy in your post??
I have been one pains meds for a little over a year. Initially prescribed by my specialist and now by a pm doc since Oct. 07. I have always gotten my scripts filled at the same pharmacy(a chain pharmacy) and always receive quality service...no looks or lectures. However at times it is an inconvienence for me to go there, or to deal with the wait times. A new chain opened and the times I have been in the store the pharmacy always appears empty and they have a drive thru service. I was thinking about switching but am afraid that the grass may not be greener...some of you I know have run into your fair share of pharmacy troubles. I am fairly certain, I did not sign a contract...so I am not sure that I am bound by the pm clinic to use the same pharmacy. Just looking for your HO ;) Would you switch?
Also, is it allowed to use the name of the pharmacy in your post??
Sponsor
cmpgirl
05-22-2008, 11:46 AM
As far as switching....I have been trying to decide the same for a while now. I have had some issues in the past, but lately all has been fine, so I am a bit afraid to rock the boat. I would say, if you have really good luck with your current one, stick with it. If you do decide to switch, even if you don't have a contract, I would let the doc know anyway as a courtesy. I would also go to the new pharmacy and ask to speak with the pharmacist or pharm. manager. They will usually tell you if your current meds are ones they keep in stock.
Hope this helped a little. Take care and post often. CMP
Hope this helped a little. Take care and post often. CMP
forginon
05-22-2008, 12:41 PM
...If you do decide to switch, even if you don't have a contract, I would let the doc know anyway as a courtesy...
Absolutely.
Even with no contract it is still wise to stick with one pharmacy when dealing with narcotics. The DEA looks for multiple pharmacy use when trying to ID abusers and diverters. You really don't want them breathing down your neck, or down the neck of your doc.
Save everyone the trouble and use just one pharmacy for opioids.
steve
Absolutely.
Even with no contract it is still wise to stick with one pharmacy when dealing with narcotics. The DEA looks for multiple pharmacy use when trying to ID abusers and diverters. You really don't want them breathing down your neck, or down the neck of your doc.
Save everyone the trouble and use just one pharmacy for opioids.
steve
momhurts
05-22-2008, 03:30 PM
Thanks for your advice. Of course I would let the doctor know...and although I know I am just switching for convienence, I didn't think about the flags it could raise. I will keep with where I am and know that the pros definetely outweigh the cons.
Thanks for the help!
Thanks for the help!
Boxerluver
05-22-2008, 03:40 PM
I use 2 different pharmacies, because sometimes the one that special orders my meds doesn't get them in on time and I'm only talking about 7 times in the last 5 years. Most of the time I go to the same one, but in the past I have been treated unfairly and when I talked to the doc, they always told me to change to a different pharmacy that treats me right. If I would ever need to change, my doc refers his patients to a mom and pop place that keeps all the different kinds of PM meds in stock. I've alwyas told my docs what's going on so they are up tp date and everything has been great.
Melissa
Melissa
kim46
05-22-2008, 11:59 PM
A subject close to my heart.
I used 2 pharmacies for the same meds in different months because my usual pharmacy was out.
My RX company sent a letter to all of my doctors. I have a PPO and have been advised (recommended) to use one pharmacy only, which I will, so I went to my usual pharmacy, told him my whole history, he's compassionate and will keep my meds in stock.
Phew, it was a nightmare. And quite against my plan and my rights - I should be able to go to the pharmacy of my choice and I should also be allowed to receive brand if my doctor so chooses - so much for that PPO and the BIG HUGE US drugstore RX now in effect for 5 months which has caused me this problem. For 20 years prior, never a peep.
I refuse to use this chain - Chain Viscous Store. I could care less that they're my RX insurer - I use a supermarket pharmacy with a human pharmacist.
I used 2 pharmacies for the same meds in different months because my usual pharmacy was out.
My RX company sent a letter to all of my doctors. I have a PPO and have been advised (recommended) to use one pharmacy only, which I will, so I went to my usual pharmacy, told him my whole history, he's compassionate and will keep my meds in stock.
Phew, it was a nightmare. And quite against my plan and my rights - I should be able to go to the pharmacy of my choice and I should also be allowed to receive brand if my doctor so chooses - so much for that PPO and the BIG HUGE US drugstore RX now in effect for 5 months which has caused me this problem. For 20 years prior, never a peep.
I refuse to use this chain - Chain Viscous Store. I could care less that they're my RX insurer - I use a supermarket pharmacy with a human pharmacist.
aussiejono
05-23-2008, 12:44 AM
" should also be allowed to receive brand if my doctor so chooses"
I have to disagree there, the guge price premiums on drand name drugs would break insurance plans, or drive premiums so high nobody could afford to be a member. If the generics have been shown to be bioequivalent (which I think they have to) then it seems fair and reasonable for insurance (or the national health scheme in Australia) to pay the cost of a generic, and if you prefer the brandname, then you pick up the difference.
Thats how Australia works it.... the gvernment health schem picks up the bill for the lowest priced bio-equivalent version, if you want to pay more to get a brandname, then you are free to pay the difference.
I have to disagree there, the guge price premiums on drand name drugs would break insurance plans, or drive premiums so high nobody could afford to be a member. If the generics have been shown to be bioequivalent (which I think they have to) then it seems fair and reasonable for insurance (or the national health scheme in Australia) to pay the cost of a generic, and if you prefer the brandname, then you pick up the difference.
Thats how Australia works it.... the gvernment health schem picks up the bill for the lowest priced bio-equivalent version, if you want to pay more to get a brandname, then you are free to pay the difference.
cmpgirl
05-23-2008, 01:13 AM
[QUOTE=aussiejono;3579620
Thats how Australia works it.... the gvernment health schem picks up the bill for the lowest priced bio-equivalent version, if you want to pay more to get a brandname, then you are free to pay the difference.[/QUOTE]
This is part of the problem here in the states. The DEA only requires that generics have +/- 20% - 25% of the active ingredient. So, there are some major differences in the brand vs. generic. Ex had a very interesting thread a while back re: this very subject. (I may be off on the percentages by a little, but ex's thread had the correct numbers.)
Some insurance companies have a stipulation that you must pay in full for brand name meds if a generic is available. Some have a special provision that adds the difference to the patient's out of pocket, and some (very few) have a rider that pays equally for generic or brand. So, it depends on the insurance plan that a person has.
Thats how Australia works it.... the gvernment health schem picks up the bill for the lowest priced bio-equivalent version, if you want to pay more to get a brandname, then you are free to pay the difference.[/QUOTE]
This is part of the problem here in the states. The DEA only requires that generics have +/- 20% - 25% of the active ingredient. So, there are some major differences in the brand vs. generic. Ex had a very interesting thread a while back re: this very subject. (I may be off on the percentages by a little, but ex's thread had the correct numbers.)
Some insurance companies have a stipulation that you must pay in full for brand name meds if a generic is available. Some have a special provision that adds the difference to the patient's out of pocket, and some (very few) have a rider that pays equally for generic or brand. So, it depends on the insurance plan that a person has.
aussiejono
05-23-2008, 01:17 AM
I think you will find that they allow a variation of +/- 10%, not only between brands, but between batches of the same brand..... so you could get the same variation between batches of a well known brand as well as beween a brand and a generic.
I beleive that bioequivalence studies have to be carried out (I know they do in Australia, and cant beleive that they wouldnt in the US) before generics are allowed on the market.
I have no doubt a lot of people notice a difference when theytake a generic, because they know they are taking a brand, or a generic.... but if they were given the pills without knowing which was Percodan and which was Bumfuck Laboritories Oxycodone/Aspirin tabs USP, I wonder how many would be able to pick the difference.
I beleive that bioequivalence studies have to be carried out (I know they do in Australia, and cant beleive that they wouldnt in the US) before generics are allowed on the market.
I have no doubt a lot of people notice a difference when theytake a generic, because they know they are taking a brand, or a generic.... but if they were given the pills without knowing which was Percodan and which was Bumfuck Laboritories Oxycodone/Aspirin tabs USP, I wonder how many would be able to pick the difference.
Executor
05-23-2008, 02:50 AM
In the U.S., the FDA permits generics to be up to -20% according to Hatch-Waxman Act of 1999. The -20% applies to both active and inactive ingredients. It's also important to note that the FDA appointees from the last several presidential administrations have almost all been major stakeholders in large pharmaceutical companies. Funny how that works isn't it?
So....You pay for one thing, but get something 20% less. One of the posters in that thread (brand vs generics-Major findings) actually posted that they sent their methadone 10mg off to be tested and it came back 8.1mg, or 19% different.
The generics have a 20% adder in profitability right off the bat because they are charging for one product, but providing another.
Ex
So....You pay for one thing, but get something 20% less. One of the posters in that thread (brand vs generics-Major findings) actually posted that they sent their methadone 10mg off to be tested and it came back 8.1mg, or 19% different.
The generics have a 20% adder in profitability right off the bat because they are charging for one product, but providing another.
Ex
aussiejono
05-23-2008, 02:57 AM
That realy is a disgrace!
I guess we in Australia 9some of us anyway) expect Amerca to be worlds best practice..... the gold standard so to speak, and are shocked when we find out that this always isnt so.
My mother is a pharmacist, and she is adamant that in Australia and New Zealand are interchangable with the originator brands.
All our drugs come in patient packs (a box with 30 or 50 or whatever pills in it).. so an issue can be, when there are several generics on the market, a person can get a different looking package and tablet every month, which can be confusing for some, especialy the old or the not so bright.
I guess we in Australia 9some of us anyway) expect Amerca to be worlds best practice..... the gold standard so to speak, and are shocked when we find out that this always isnt so.
My mother is a pharmacist, and she is adamant that in Australia and New Zealand are interchangable with the originator brands.
All our drugs come in patient packs (a box with 30 or 50 or whatever pills in it).. so an issue can be, when there are several generics on the market, a person can get a different looking package and tablet every month, which can be confusing for some, especialy the old or the not so bright.
Executor
05-23-2008, 03:06 AM
I guess we in Australia 9some of us anyway) expect Amerca to be worlds best practice..... the gold standard so to speak, and are shocked when we find out that this always isnt so.
Not even close! In the U.S., it's all about "cost control." Medicine is quickly being taken over by the insurance companies, who are very profit oriented. They want your premiums, but don't want to pay claims. Very routinely, they "deny" certain drugs for certain conditions saying other drugs will work. They will only approve (sometimes) after a lengthly dialogue with the Doc. Well....If the Doc wanted some other drug prescribed, he/she would have written it to start with. Some plans now only cover generics and won't cover brands under any circumstance.
I found out just today from my independent pharmacist (who has become a good friend) that he gets reimbursed for the industry retail average cost (this is a pharmacy standard now) on each drug. So, if he carries generics above this "average" cost, he loses money. If he carries generics priced below this average cost...Or the cheapest out there, he makes more money. So guess what.....He and every other pharmacy carry the cheapest drugs out there....And I'm willing to bet all these "cheap" drugs put as little in the med as possible....That's how they make their money back.
The whole system is a scam.
Ex
Not even close! In the U.S., it's all about "cost control." Medicine is quickly being taken over by the insurance companies, who are very profit oriented. They want your premiums, but don't want to pay claims. Very routinely, they "deny" certain drugs for certain conditions saying other drugs will work. They will only approve (sometimes) after a lengthly dialogue with the Doc. Well....If the Doc wanted some other drug prescribed, he/she would have written it to start with. Some plans now only cover generics and won't cover brands under any circumstance.
I found out just today from my independent pharmacist (who has become a good friend) that he gets reimbursed for the industry retail average cost (this is a pharmacy standard now) on each drug. So, if he carries generics above this "average" cost, he loses money. If he carries generics priced below this average cost...Or the cheapest out there, he makes more money. So guess what.....He and every other pharmacy carry the cheapest drugs out there....And I'm willing to bet all these "cheap" drugs put as little in the med as possible....That's how they make their money back.
The whole system is a scam.
Ex
aussiejono
05-23-2008, 03:15 AM
Australia has a national health service, paid for out of tax revenue, it isnt perfect by a long shot, but it is beggining to look a lot better when i see what you guys have to put up with.
Sounds like the rich would get the best of everything, and the rest of society takes what they are given.
We have restrictions here, for examply, some new expersive druggs are only subsidised if a standard drug has failed, or some drugs might only be susidised for certain conditions. The basis for these decisions is usualy cost effectiveness (for examply, some of the new, $1000 per month antiepiliepsy drugs will only be subsidised if the patient easnt controled, or suffered side effrects from, one of the standard ones)
Sounds like the rich would get the best of everything, and the rest of society takes what they are given.
We have restrictions here, for examply, some new expersive druggs are only subsidised if a standard drug has failed, or some drugs might only be susidised for certain conditions. The basis for these decisions is usualy cost effectiveness (for examply, some of the new, $1000 per month antiepiliepsy drugs will only be subsidised if the patient easnt controled, or suffered side effrects from, one of the standard ones)
Executor
05-23-2008, 03:20 AM
I know we could probably talk about this all day (or night in this case), but IMO, until the U.S. moves to some form of socialized medicine, things will never change. In fact, they will get worse.
Ex
Ex