|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
2900 days ago
|
|
The basic argument is that when you make seeing a doctor to get access to a drug optional, you also make it a luxury; it changes patient expectations and thus behavior. Most people don't go to the doctor before taking Claritin or Sudafed; when you go to the doctor and get a "script" for Sudafed, that's your signal that you wasted yours and the doctor's time. |
|
The tragedy of the situation is that most prescriptions aren't as effective as marketing campaigns lead people to believe. For example, statins are good for improving patients' cholesterol lab #'s, but make them achey, and only prevent a handful of heart attacks for every 100 patients treated (statins have a poor 'number needed to treat' [0] ratio).
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat (the section titled "simple example" says ~98 people had to take the studied cholesterol drug for 3.3 years to prevent one cardiac event.)
Number needed to harm is another important factor. All patients were harmed by DES [1], before it was withdrawn...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol