Some drug stores in the US are now giving away statin drugs for cholesterol.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on a chain in its area doing so:
“Retail grocery store competition is fierce, and Wegmans is trying to get an edge by giving away – yes, free – a generic version of what was the world’s best-selling drug, the cholesterol medicine Lipitor.”
We’ve read that the Midwestern retail chain Meijer announced that it would provide free generic versions of Pfizer’s cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin) to patients with valid prescriptions in all of its 199 pharmacies.”
But for a broader perspective on why this is happening, you could read Managed Care Magazine’s article,”Free Statins Disrupt Pharmacy Benefit Plans.” Excerpts:
“One pharmacy expert says that in its generic form, Lipitor has become a market commodity, no different from grains of rice or sugar or white sand on a beach. He adds that developments in the statin class might foreshadow what’s in store for many other classes.
The implication is that it could be a sea change for health plans and pharmacy benefit managers.
“The acquisition cost of generics has become so low that pharmacies can essentially afford to give them away, and the Wegmans supermarket pharmacy is doing that,” says Adam J. Fein, PhD, head of Pembroke Consulting and of the pharma blog Drug Channels.
…
“Pharmacies are cutting their prices to compete in a flat market. The number of prescriptions is growing less than 1 percent per year, which means the only way for pharmacies to grow is to steal market share or acquire a competitor. This was kicked off six years ago by Walmart,” says Fein.
“The new development is that generic drugs are becoming consumer products, subject to the same rules of competition and discounting that you see with any consumer product.”
You still need a prescription to get the free statins from the pharmacies that are giving them away.
Just a few years ago I remember discussions of putting statins in the water supply. Are we inching closer to the faucet?
———————–
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Why we should still miss healthnewsreview. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like