I'm against this. It's a strategy cooked up by the "barefoot and pregnant" contingent, I think.

There's no knowing what it will do to cost.

Currently, birth control pills cost around $50/pack. It is unlikely that this would be the case for over-the-counter BCPs, and competition and generics would drive the price down further.

The bill is being sponsored by a known women's rights advocate. Not sure how, but the right to use co-pays on BCPs would be protected, even though they are over-the-counter.

It's a win-win.

My only concern is that there are many birth control pills on the market with varying contents of estrogen and progersterin (sp?) and I think a doctor is the best person to look at a woman's medical history, judge which pill is best and monitor side-effects so that she is protected.

On the other hand, I haven't taken the things in 30 years, so it's possible that there is one BCP that has shown itself to be safe for most women.

Making them over the counter could easily result in far higher prices from the manufacturers, increasing the cost for women. The issues you raise about health risks are also important.

On the other hand, women without insurance don't currently have the same access to contraception, so that is still an issue. I'm not sure, though, that this would help on that score.

Happens every single time a drug becomes OTC.

and they all charge more? Gosh. Then why are my generic drugs so amazingly inexpensive?

than if covered by insurance.

Have you looked at your receipt to see what you're paying vs what the insurance company is?

Can't get any cheaper than that.

My daughter takes Prilosec. With insurance, it's only $10/month. If I had to buy the exact same thing over the counter, and they do sell it over the counter, I'd pay four times as much. So yeah, the prescription version, with insurance, is far cheaper than OTC.

With a physician's advice? At Planned Parenthood or someplace similar?

I worked for PP in CT for 6 years and staffed with nurse practitioners overseen by a medical director who is an MD.

Unless you are 40 or smoke or have family history of several problems, the common ones are pretty safe to take with minimal monitoring once you get the dosage right for you. Though Yasmin brand should be off the market as that type is not safe for hardly anyone.

That's why the Republicans want it. "Just get your pills over-the-counter" means they can cut birth control coverage and have less backlash.

But the end result is much more expensive birth control.

First, over-the-counter means no insurance coverage for the pills themselves. Second, IUDs and other long-lasting birth control are much cheaper in the long run, but way more expensive up-front. Slashing birth control coverage because you can get pills over-the-counter means IUDs are no longer affordable.

I went to www.ontheissues.org and Patty Murray falls into the left liberal category, and she is definitely pro-choice.

However, if you don't think she's left liberal, that's fine. She may not be on all issues. In this thread, we're talking specifically about birth control pills.

is from "keep them barefoot and pregnant" contingent. My point is that Murray, who is staunchly pro-choice, is not part of that.

Okay....

No? Then why would they pay for over-the-counter birth control pills?

Republicans back this because it gives them an "out" for slashing birth control coverage. They get to appease the "Hobby Lobby" crowd by removing birth control coverage requirements from insurance, but hide behind "You can still buy them over-the-counter" to reduce the backlash.

Prilosec was $120/month, dived to about $30. Flonase was $150 a pop, not down to $20. In both cases, they're the same, although Prilosec is in pills instead of capsules. Making them OTC could conceivably drop the price.

My caveat is that there are some women out there who shouldn't take them, smokers with high congenital cholesterol loads and/or a history of blood clots. They really need to find an alternative. Other women have a great deal of difficulty finding the right dosage.

It's not like aspirin, in other words. One dose does not fit all.

However, prescriptions should run much longer once a woman is on a steady dosage and tolerating it well. It shouldn't need renewal unless something goes wrong and she needs to consult the doctor about changing the dose or the form.

Something needs to be done. Avoiding health professionals completely isn't one of them, however they can be avoided after the initial screening. Not having to cough up a hundred bucks or so every 6 months for a prescription renewal would be a help, as would decreasing drug store paperwork.

I think the OTC proponents are trying to get by the prissy pharmacists whose morbid religious baggage is preventing them from doing their jobs. A better idea there is to fire such pharmacists and replace them with people who will do their jobs.

90 day refills. I see my doctor once a year unless I get sick. That seems to be the norm. I take two blood pressure meds and a station. They're very dose sensitive. So are oral contraceptives. They should be prescribed by a physician or other qualified professional after a history and exam.

Too much risk. Checking for blood clots, over all health check - those are too important as part of one's annual check up. The key is to keep the annual check up in place for all women with eggs and periods who need birth control.

What I would agree with though is pharmacists administering Depo - there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to refill and get your shot when pharmacies are already giving immunizations.

What would happen if a doctor was not monitoring it?

But I see your point. If a pharmacy can administer immunizations, like swine flu protection, which has had side-effects, then Depo can't be any worse.

It was a nurse - not even the P.A.

Blood pressure, temp, pulse, questions -shot - go.

This was also when I was taking Enbrel (giving myself weekly injections) so I was kind of perturbed that I could give myself one - but not the other.

But see my other post on this thread.

I was given antibiotics and codeine cough syrup by the pharmacist. Their pharmacists are 'whole care' health providers. They don't just fill prescriptions.

They also *side note* can tell you if a mushroom is poisonous or not.

So you know there's nothing besides what's in the title.

There are too many health conditions that might rule out one vs other oral contraceptives vs other forms. For example, a woman might be better off with a diaphragm if she doesn't have intercourse regularly.

I think all forms of contraception should be free or low-cost.

I like more access but the pills aren't for everyone. OTOH how common are mini strokes from birth control pills? Pregnancy has dangers too and the increased risk of pregnancy and associated health problems might be greater than the increased risk of mini strokes and other birth control pill side effects.

prescriptions...

Why should I go to a doctor and double the amount of money spent for something like a simple infection? Or, just my asthma medication?

Be able to go to a pharmacy and purchase medications you need. Perhaps keep track of amount through a nationwide database. I think it would work.

and in no other country that I've ever heard of in my decade of experience.

A doctor visit here costs 6 euros (around $7.50)because there is Single Payer Universal health care. I can usually see my doctor on the same day that I call for an appointment.

The Wahhabite controlled countries of Saudi Arabia, and Libya hand out BC pills without a doctor? What parts of the deeply conservative Muslim ME are we supposed to believe hand out BC w/o seeing a doctor first?

It doesn't happen in the EU, nor in Morroco or Algeria. What parts of Africa are you claiming you are talking about? Somalia perhaps?

Sometimes its better to just admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

also Kenya and Tanzania...

Really,you should get out more.

50% of women say they would NOT report a rape in the UAE for fear of their own (the rape victim's) imprisonment. Women, by law, cannot circulate freely and if they do, they are subject to sexual harassment and sexual assault. ALL ADULT women have a MALE GUARDIAN in the UAE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

In this context, is your argument that B/C pills freely and easily available is an improvement for women? Really? In the UAE, it will be the male guardian (husband, father, brother, uncle) of the women who determines her access to B/C, because sex outside of marriage is a CRIME.

That her male guardian would impose this drug on her (her husband decides what to do with her body) without allowing her access to a doctor is discriminatory and trampling of her rights to access to healthcare. Still, this is the example you propose the USA to follow. Because it's cheaper. Blech.

Your other two examples are Kenya and Tanzania. Really, you propose that the USA should follow the example of Sub-Saharan African countries? What a lovely idea, but no thanks.

I noticed that you didn't press your luck on Europe. That was smart.

Really, some people should pull their heads out of their arse more.

When your simple infection is viral, the antibiotics you are taking don't do any good. Also, people tend to stop taking over-the-counter pills as soon as symptoms go away, which is not long enough to avoid antibiotic resistance.

Lastly, you have to figure out which antibiotic for your simple infection. Right now the doctor looks at the infection to guess if you need a penicillin derivative or a sulfa drug.

I am quite capable of checking which anti-biotic works for which type of infection. Please note, I am not talking about anything that could be construed as 'serious'. If you are aware of your body, I am far better at telling my doctor whether I have a virus, or infection. Numerous times in my life I was told... virus. Only to get slammed a few days later by the infection taking it to the next step.

I get the same feeling of aggravation here in the US when I can't just simply pop into an eye place and buy a box of contact lenses. I know my prescription. I have worn the same for years. Why in the hell do I need a new prescription every few months (law depends on state there)?

We waste a lot of medical resources in this country by treating people like helpless cattle... In the end, it just makes them more passive when it comes to their health.

It expires after 12 months... no refills unless you have a paid visit.

No doctor visit, no doctor co-pay, no trying to schedule an appointment, no working around the doctor's hours, no taking time off from work to see the doctor.

I'm really starting to be torn.

So I guess for me, it depends which one they put on the market. I would think that it would be a low estrogen version, with minimal side effects, that helps the women who need the estrogen for non-birth control purposes.

If I recall correctly, about 1/3 of all women using BCPs are not using them for birth control, but for maintaining other problems that daily estrogen helps with.

But a lot of those women are taking b.c. to control endo - and on the tail end of whole fertility - menopause symptoms.

I don't know my comfort level with giving a 50 year old woman who could have other underlying health issues the pill -

Or a 19 year old who might actually need laparascopic to help her manage the tissue growing in her body.


See- I love the idea of birth control on demand - I guess I would just want a nurse on hand. Or a pharmacist with that training.

I've been sick in France and been able to go and get an antibiotic and cough medicine with codeine in it at the pharmacy. A few days later I still needed to see wonderful physician - but all he did was up the antibiotic to a Zpack so I could get back out there and keep spending money.

reason other than birth control because some stupid sexist insurance company said they won't pay for BCP
if they're for BC.

That's the way it was in the 80's and I expect still is.

I suggest that the politicians butt out.

Do it without costing an arm and a leg too. Free would be perfect.

pay for other medications over the counter.

Other than that Yeah.

used to be prescription only and was covered by insurance. It is now otc and is not coveted by insurance. It is also somewhat expensive for some people.

Pharmacists are being given the training to prescribe a few things and this is one of them. They will be trained to counsel those who want them.

This would have been a boon to me and people I knew who couldn't afford to take time out of their workday to sit in PP because we couldn't get health insurance.

I had a bad experience with a pharmacist. I asked about drug interactions, and got referred to my physician. He wouldn't even look it up. As a result, I don't ask them anything.

What are pharmacists supposed to know? What would they be trained to do?

Maybe someone could tell me more about how pharmacists handle flu shots, if they screen people, and don't give them to people on certain medications, or do you just go ask for one and get it automatically?

This is what I read this week:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/05/412226430/california-women-can-soon-go-right-to-the-pharmacist-for-birth-control

""The pharmacist is really an untapped resource," Kroon says. "We are graduating students that are ready for this, but the laws just haven't kept up with what the pharmacist training already is."

<snip>

Pharmacists' growing power has some physicians bracing for a turf war. The California Medical Association opposed an early version of the law, citing patient safety concerns. It later withdrew its opposition after lawmakers added a special licensing procedure and continuing education requirement for pharmacists.

<snip>

Pharmacy professor Kroon says the plan is for pharmacists to communicate regularly with patients' doctors. "We are not a lone ranger out there doing something," she says."

<snip>

I got a flu shot last year at Walgreens and had to fill out a form about my health history. I think that was the screening.

edit to add--I don't know about laws where you are, but in CA we aren't allowed to take our stuff from the pharmacy without a counseling session about the drugs and possible interactions and side effects. Sorry you had such a bad encounter, that sucks!

by the health history form.

- Cost of OTC would probably be more than a co-pay.
- I don't consider Birth Control Pills only Birth Control Pills, they are prescribed to correct certain imbalances in the body. So I consider them as hormone pills rather than just purely birth control.

Given the 2nd point, it was my reason that I have always contended that any bill that the Republicans push through that in any way limits access to those pills is absolutely missing the point. They are not just Birth Control Pills, they are Hormone Drugs that happen to control fertility. Not every single pill works for each person, and each one comes with different side effects for different people.

So my position I guess would be:
I am for it, in principle, but I must say that they should be careful what they wish for, since if they get this through it may have unintended consequences that they would not want.

It's long past time they were OTC.

In the doctors office is they administer a pregnancy test. This is important because one should not take the pill if already pregnant.

How many women wouldn't get this screening if the process is bypassed?

If you are not of a certain age, or have personal or family history, after several good paps, you can spread them out more if you want.

bothers me that a dr scholls foot pad has at least a machine to help you find the right one but birth control pick and hope for the best????

Not only will it cost women more, but also BC pills are not for every woman at a uniform dose. Some women react badly to it; with others, an OTC dosage won't be effective IMO.

and I can get an appointment to see my doctor the same day I call, usually. If not, the next day.

That's what Single Payer Universal health care is all about. It is not "insurance". This is why I'll be voting for Bernie Sanders.

if abortion rights are going to continue to be severely restricted, maybe birth control pills should be sold over-the-counter. I read somewhere that taking a large amount will induce abortion. Obviously, this is nothing I would recommend, but I'd rather have the option open for a woman before she resorts to a coat hanger.

Hormonal birth control really does need regular checkups and monitoring.

I see a lot of ads for these allergy pills that seem to do the same thing

If it works for ibuprofen....

With the ACA everyone should be covered

Republicans have been pushing this because it lets them strip birth control coverage requirements from insurance to satisfy the "Hobby Lobby" crowd, while using "just buy it like Tylenol" to deflect the worst of the backlash.

Which means more expensive birth control pills, because it's no longer a co-pay.

It also removes IUDs and other long-acting birth control that is much cheaper in the long run. Without insurance, the up-front costs are extremely high.

Lastly, these things aren't tic-tacs. There's some very serious problems that should be checked for, and one formula is not appropriate for all women.

If we're going to claim "birth control is safer than Tylenol", I'd rather strip Tylenol from OTC. That stuff would never be approved for OTC today.

Yes, this particular proposal claims it would still require insurance to cover it. But time does not stop with this proposal. Republicans will either strip the insurance requirement from this bill, or will strip it from later bills. "If insurance doesn't have to pay for other OTC drugs, why do they have to pay for OTC birth control? Besides, it's all about that icky women stuff."

You should have to ask for them, only because some ass will try to use them for nefarious purposes and end up hurting someone. I don't think you should have to give a name, or be age checked but something to make a person who may intentionally misuse them think twice.

You may have to give an age. Last I checked, BCPs are not good for women over 35. Or smokers.

It really depends on which one, or ones, they put on the market.

Since there are many different types of pills for different reasons (progesterone only for breastfeeding women, triphasic, monophasic for people like me with hormone triggered migraines) I think initially a doctor's visit should be required. However, once it has been decided the right pill has been prescribed and is working well, I see no reason why one couldn't get it at the pharmacy OTC and have it continued to be covered by insurance since it was originally prescribed by a doctor. This would cut down on the whole go-back-every-6-months-for-a-new-script waste of time appointments (man, I hate those, have to take time off work and everything) and would avoid the whole rise in price with OTC meds. Well, I can dream, right?