2 Comments »

Now that physicians have been successful in gaining access to Avastin for WMD, are they also required, in plain English, to explain to their patients they have decided to administer them a drug that is NOT FDA-approved for safety, efficacy or sterility for WMD, because it’s cheaper?

Will they explain there IS an FDA-approved drug for this purpose but they don’t like the price?

For patients on Medicare and other insurance, the FDA-approved drug, Lucentis, is covered, as it should be, and physicians place patients at unnecessary risk when using Avastin instead.

We should all be greatly concerned these physicians have now created a precedent where insurers will NOT reimburse for an FDA-approved drug because a pharmacy can make something cheaper, even though they cannot guarantee the safety, efficacy or sterility of every product they make themselves. Recent headlines from Oregon where three patients died from a ‘mistake’ made in a compounding pharmacy begs the question, “How do we justify increased risk based on cost saving efforts as being ‘best for the patient?”

not likely. bio-identicals are proving to be no better than the regular HRT, as you may have read in the news lately. if our insurance companies were to start covering these exorbitantly high costs, our insurance costs would go even higher. I suggest you become better informed and stop listening to Suzanne. we aren’t going to be young forever
http://www.greatearthpharmacy.com

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>