Or at least allow people to continue to renew their medications after prescribed one time, rather than requiring further doctor's visits.
Most things in medicine are expensive due to legal monopolies/improper regulations. e.g. no reason you shouldn't be able to buy prescription glasses for $10-20 dollars off the shelf. The main problem with medical costs is that it's not a free enough market, with sufficient competition.
Some medications require regular monitoring to ensure that bad side effects aren't happening; PrEP requires checkups every 90 days to make sure kidney function is not getting impacted.
People can easily seek out prescriptions as it is today, they just need to find a doctor and say the right things. This is common with TRT, Modafinil, Cannabis etc the barrier as it exists today is mostly artificial.
We allow people to drink alcohol, so any drug less dangerous than that shouldn't be gated
Saying that kidney function usually involves Estimated Glomular Filtration Rate which means they measure the creatinine. Now if you happen to supplement with creatine, creatinine being the metabolised form will alter the eGFR! So if a dr doesnt ask you if you are supplementing with vitamins, minerals and other supplements, you could skew some medical tests and end up with a medical condition that doesnt exist!
You can also get quite alot off your pharmacy, but you need to know what to say, so some online pharmacys are better to use to work out what to say.
For example, if you want to get hold of Testogel here in the UK, for males its a nice pick me up and its being used in South Africa for dementia treatment, you need to say your T levels are below a certain amount. If you get rejected, you lower the amount on another website and then you can eventually work out what the level is that lets you have a testogel prescription!
Its not too hard to game the medical system for low risk drugs, for everything else you have various people who already qualify and through word of mouth have been known to sell on their meds because the Dr might sometimes up the dose if there is no response or told there is no response. SSRI's are like this. In theory a blood test measuring the 5-Hydroxyindoleacetic acid from the jugular vein will test if someone is taking SSRI's but they also do other things which go undocumented until some published scientific study highlights it.
To be honest though, the best drugs are vitamins and supplements, the number of medical studies I've read highlighting negative effects is quite shocking. Take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphosphonate#History It was first used for bone problems in the 1960's but the technology wasnt around to explain exactly what it was doing until the 1990's! Loads of studies slate the use of Bisphonates but these are recent like post millennium studies.
In fact you go through Google Scholar, you can see a trend from the first studies published in the 1800's where medicine was largely using what was found in the body, so B12 deficiency was eating raw liver, then from WW1 to WW2 patented drugs started to appear and thats when modern medicine started, but it is a case of medicine is restricted by the technology so AI in medicine is big business.
This gives you an idea of how the medical profession work, drug companies develop something run a battery of tests and then see if they can get it licenced and sold as a treatment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bupropion#History This is another drug designed for one thing but they noticed it had smoking cessation properties so it got relicensed.
Painkillers even the common ones like ibuprofen and paracetamol are also dangerous drugs. Paracetamol will destroy your bones and your kidneys dont like ibuprofen.
This is the history of Ecstasy aka molly aka mdma TLDR,
1912 German pharma Merck developed the compound for blood clotting, didnt work so got shelved.
1950's US Army dust off the compound and get university of Michigan to study it.
1973 results declassified.
1978 https://twitter.com/DrAShulgin a former Dow chemicals chemist into his psychoactive drugs looks at it and publishes a report "the drug appears to evoke an easily controlled altered state of consciousness with emotional and sensual overtones. It can be compared in its effects to marijuana, to psilocybin devoid of the hallucinatory component, or to low levels of MDA"
Psychotherapists start using it.
1980's its getting popular and DEA start to take notice.
1985 DEA get it banned, people having too much fun! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3931692/
Medicine is like chemical hacking of the body.
My clinic’s backend used to have a slightly easier ‘refill prescription’ form but they changed it to only work with their integrated pharmacies. The closest one is an hour away.
And of the big problems in medicine - a prescription for glasses (which isn’t really a medical service in the US - optometry is not a medical profession) just doesn’t register for me - you can order glasses online without a prescription if you are so inclined.
Meanwhile there isn’t any realistic libertarian solution to allocation or access to complex medical care - and just hand waving “free markets” doesn’t make it so.
Contacts would certainly be much cheaper without that hurdle.
And I bring up vision, because it's a common problem and for less well off folk with families it can be a big expense, basically entirely unnecessarily so. Imagine making 20k/year and you have to pay $500-$1000 a year for vision correction for your family. That's 2.5-5% of your pretax compensation
There's no handwaving here. Competitive markets require complete information. Information about costs to the consumer is basically entirely opaque. Over 90% of medical costs are non emergency, so if people could comparison shop, costs would go down. Also requires skin in the game (e.g. marginal cost per visit).
Look at plastic surgery for a good example of how free market/non insurance based medicine can fare. Many procedures are quite cheap, and while many are still expensive, much cheaper than necessary medical care covered by insurance. Also the number of doctors is still limited by the AMA, so even this is not fully competitive. There's an arbitrary cap on number of providers
This is an old trope but hasn’t even been superficially true for years. The AMA does not have the authority to limit the number of doctors. In any event their political influence has become less and less relevant for decades now, so even their ability to influence the number of docs is quite limited - I am not even am AMA member - I was only during medical school to get discounts on test prep. I don’t believe most of my peers are AMA members either - they belong to their specialist groups. Meanwhile the number of medical schools and students in the US has increased substantially in part due to AMA and AAMC. Meanwhile internal medicine residencies still have to fill their ranks with imported talent (foreign medical graduates) - only the lucrative subspecialties are the ones that remain limited and competitive. There are also forces at work to limit the number of MD jobs available that have nothing to do with the supply of MDs (replacement of positions with midlevels). The limit on residency positions is a partisan federal funding issue going on for years and only recently has much headway been made.
On eye care, I can of course self prescribe but even so for contact lenses I usually end up purchasing overseas from reputable retailers because of the price fixing of contact lenses - and I’ve never been asked for a prescription. It’s not that hard to get eyewear without a prescription.
Combine education and free access to everything with reasonable daily unit limits and per-substance licensing. You want meth, you go through meth safety training and get a yearlong endorsement allowing you to buy up to the daily limit at a pharmacy, no prescription involved.
Set up due process that limits or eliminates legal access to substances based on criminal or medical situations.
Drug abuse - using in inappropriate situations leading to misbehavior - can be treated as a medical issue. Misbehavior that rises to the level of criminality is already handled.
It's absurd to think that any adult in a free country has any business whatsoever telling other adults what they can ingest or do in private.
Some variation on these notions are already demonstrated across the world. The current schedule system and drug laws in America serve only the bad guys, whether it's commercial prison slave labor, drug cartels, big Pharma, or the alphabet jackboots.
I believe they were referring to the snake oil craze of the 19th century, not prohibition:
> The term comes from the "snake oil" that used to be sold as a cure-all elixir for many kinds of physiological problems. Many 19th-century United States and 18th-century European entrepreneurs advertised and sold mineral oil (often mixed with various active and inactive household herbs, spices, drugs, and compounds, but containing no snake-derived substances whatsoever) as "snake oil liniment", making claims about its efficacy as a panacea. Patent medicines that claimed to be a panacea were extremely common from the 18th century until the 20th, particularly among vendors masking addictive drugs such as cocaine, amphetamine, alcohol and opium-based concoctions or elixirs, to be sold at medicine shows as medication or products promoting health.
