// October 29th, 2010 // No Comments » // Impotence
Free Viagra

- Free Viagra
As soon as it became apparent that Viagra was effective and allowed sexually impaired men to enjoy sexual intercourse once again, there was an overwhelming lust for this new medication. Demand for Viagra skyrocketed, and within six months after it had been released and made available in drugstores, Viagra sales exceeded $5 hundred million. First-year projections were expected to top $1 billion, making Viagra the most successful drug ever launched in the history of medicine.
| • |
Pfizer, the drug company that developed and was marketing Viagra, was overjoyed at the success of its new medication. |
| • |
Impotent men, no longer sexually impaired, now enjoying sex again were thrilled. |
| • |
HMOs and managed care organizations, however, were frantic. |
Shortly after Viagra was released, almost all managed-care organizations panicked and, perceiving Viagra as a threat to their bottom line, circled the wagons. Surely, they reasoned, a medication this effective will be sought after by every male and some females. If we, as insurers, allow reimbursement for this medication by anyone who wants it, we will surely suffer. So HMOs decided that they would either not pay for any, or severely restrict, the numbers of Viagra pills their subscribers could receive.Their tactics were simple.
| • |
Demonize Viagra as a frivolous “sex pill.” |
| • |
Point out that Viagra was not a lifesaving medication. |
| • |
Equate Viagra with other sexually related products like birth-control devices. |
| • |
Blame pharmacies for charging $10.00 per pill for Viagra. |
| • |
Make it difficult for doctors to prescribe Viagra. |
Here is what happened with free Viagra
Before HMOs had any true sense of what the demand for Viagra would be, HMO executives in this country and the National Health Service in Great Britain projected what it would cost them to cover the cost of providing Viagra. When they calculated anticipated demand and multiplied this number by the wholesale per-pill cost, they choked.
Proclaiming everything from imminent fiscal doom to a need to raise premiums to keep up with demand, they blitzed the media. Dr. David Eddy, a prominent health-care economist, talked about making choices, and the choice he made, on behalf of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, was not to provide this “sex pill” for any of Kaiser’s millions of male subscribers. Impotence was, he reasoned, not life-threatening, and therefore he felt under no obligation to provide this medication. Curiously, impotence was the only non-life-threatening health condition treated this way. Other “quality of life” non-life-threatening conditions like acne, for example, were still deemed important enough to be covered in Kaiser’s “comprehensive” care. Many health plans followed Kaiser’s lead, and at first neither Aetna US Health Care nor any of the Prudential health insurance plans were willing to cover the cost of a single Viagra tablet.
Different insurers proved to be less miserly and grudgingly agreed to cover the cost of Viagra, but only in limited quantity. Tufts Health Plan, a popular Massachusetts insurer, will pay for four Viagra tablets per month, figuring that no man in his right mind would want to have sexual intercourse more than once a week. Each health plan scrambled to cope, and within months after Viagra was available, all had settled on ways to “deal with the Viagra problem.” Strategies were hastily devised as each HMO crafted an individual policy on its willingness to pay for Free Viagra.
No other medication, including even the most expensive prescription products for lowering high cholesterol levels and any of the other erectile dysfunction treatments, has been so severely restricted. The limitations imposed on Viagra did not, at first, also apply to other approved impotence treatments like Caverject and MUSE. Many insurers even willingly covered the cost of vacuum devices if prescribed by a physician. Why then were HMOs so restrictive when it came to Viagra?
Free Viagra Cost.
Reasons may have differed for each insurer, but in the final analysis, it was not concern for their subscribers’ welfare but rather preoccupation with HMO profitability that compelled HMOs to either avoid paying for or severely restrict Viagra’s availability to their subscribers. Further, they found that they could trivialize the value of this medication by demonizing Viagra as a “sex drug” that would benefit only some sexually obsessed men. Finally, they maintained that Viagra’s cost would be a financial burden that would force HMOs to charge more for their annual health-care premiums. Threatening to raise the amount they would have to charge their subscribers, the HMOs were confident they could avoid a customer backlash.
All of this was played out in newspapers and on television news programs. Media watchdogs raised no objection and were perfectly willing to accept the HMOs’ explanation that drawing the line with Viagra was just another one of their clever cost-control maneuvers designed to squelch ever-escalating health-care expenses.
Then, when no one objected to their singling out male sexual problems as frivolous concerns, they learned that they could also limit their payments for all erectile dysfunction treatments. In Massachusetts, for example, Blue Cross will cover the cost of Viagra, MUSE, Caverject, or vacuum erection devices only if the patient’s private physician discloses intimate details of each man’s sexual inadequacies. Prying into patients’ lives to this degree is unique to the treatment of erectile dysfunction. In essence, HMOs had made the unilateral decision to single out one medical problem for derision and by so doing ignored the plight and rights of 30 million American men.
Doctors were appalled, patients bewildered, and they collectively contrived new strategies for providing Viagra to men with erectile dysfunction. Some men discovered that the pharmacies in large chain stores like WalMart and K-Mart were, for a while, selling Viagra for about $8.00 per pill rather than the $10.00-per-pill price that prevailed at large chain pharmacies. (The wholesale price to all was about $7.50 per pill.) Those who made this discovery passed the word on to their doctors, who, in turn, encouraged their patients to shop at the less expensive Viagra vendor. Some of my patients who were pleased with the results they achieved with Viagra did not want to limit their sexual activity to the once-a-week schedule ordained by their HMO, which would pay for only four Viagra tablets each month. So they requested two prescriptions, one for the four tablets that would be covered by their insurance and a second one for another four to six, which they would take to another pharmacy, paying cash for the additional pills. This gave these men and their partners the freedom to have sexual intercourse more often than was sanctioned by their HMO.
For a while, some insurers like Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) were paying for a few Viagra tablets no matter what the dose. “Aha!” thought doctors prescribing Viagra. Now we can outwit the stingy HMOs. We know that most men can have erections and sexual intercourse after they take a 50-mg Viagra tablet. If we write a prescription for four 100-mg Viagra tablets and give the patient a pill splitter, we can effectively provide him with eight 50-mg doses, twice as much Viagra as the HMO is willing to pay for. For example, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, one of the big insurers in the New England area, set out precisely those guidelines, indicating that it would cover the cost of four Viagra tablets per month. Doctors started writing prescriptions for “Viagra 100 mg, 4 tablets.” It did not take the HMOs long to discover the doctors’ subterfuge. Within a few months, HPHC had rewritten its guidelines to stipulate that it would only cover the cost of two Viagra pills each month.
The politics of Viagra is always in flux. For example, California-based Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, which had dug in its heels refusing to pay for any Viagra, was rebuked by the State of California and ordered to provide for this medication for its subscribers. Kaiser does not plan to appeal this decision, an unusually submissive response considering its strident opposition to providing this drug benefit in the past.