4 ms·
I haven't noticed this as a consumer in the context we're talking right now. I think that article is measuring the difference between OTC and pharmacy pricing a
by reaperman 3y ago
I haven't noticed this as a consumer in the context we're talking right now. I think that article is measuring the difference between OTC and pharmacy pricing after a drug is approved OTC. But it is not looking at prices pre- vs. post- OTC approval.
Olopatadine eye drops are amazing for allergy season, and they used to be like $250-400/bottle just 5 years ago or so, even the generic version. Then they went OTC for like $10/bottle.
This pricing difference might be true for things that are already mostly cheap, like Omeprazole -- where branding on consumer products drives OTC markup, but consumers don't pick the brand when doctors prescribe it and the pharmacy just gives them whatever cheapest generic they have in the back that they negotiated excellent pricing on.
Though you can easily close the gap on these prices by shopping for the store-brand generics at Costco, Walmart, Sam's Club, etc.
- bobthepanda 3y agoIt turns out when you strip out as much of the billing bureaucracy as possible, that things become cheaper.
- reaperman 3y agoI think "captive market" probably contributes more than "billing bureaucracy" ... the billing is still the same issue after the generics have gotten OTC approval for doctor prescriptions filled by a pharmacist. It's still very common for doctors to prescribe, and pharmacists to fill OTC drugs, and the payments go through the same insurance company red tape as any other Rx. And yet, the article from GP shows that the added cost of this insurance billing bureaucracy is still less than the added cost of consumer shelf-branding markups.