E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Rachael Rettner
MyHealthNewsDaily
Women should be able to buy birth control pills over-the-counter at pharmacies without a prescription, a group of doctors says.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said today that increasing women's access to birth control in this way could reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies in the United States, which has not changed in the last 20 years. About half of U.S. pregnancies are unintended.
Although selling birth control pills over-the-counter (OTC) comes with risks — like any drug, the pill has potential side effects, and there are concerns it would be used by women who should not take the drug — these are outweighed by the benefits, the ACOG says.
The pill's availability would not change overnight. First, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would require drug companies to conduct studies proving the pill is safe for OTC use, said Claire Brindis, a reproductive health researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. For instance, the companies would need to prove that women who hadn't consulted with a doctor do indeed understand the medication's side effects and the circumstances under which they should not take it, Brindis said.
Emergency contraception (also known as the morning-after pill ), which is taken to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex, is already available over-the-counter without a prescription for women over 18.
Risks and benefits
Birth control pills can increase the risk of blood clots in some women. But this side effect is rare, and pregnancy also comes with an increased risk of blood clots, ACOG says.
"If you look at the degree to which unintended pregnancy affects women, and the risks that those unintended pregnancies carry … those risk outweigh the other risks of the medication," said Dr. Jill Rabin, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the North Shore Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y.
Studies also suggest women do not need a doctor's help in determining whether they should not use the pill. (Women should not take the pill if they are pregnant or have certain conditions such as breast cancer or high blood pressure.)
"There are many medications over the counter with side effects," Rabin said. "People have to really read [the label] to see whether or not this medication that is appropriate for them."
Rabin said she agrees with the ACOG statement and hopes that should the drugs become available OTC, women would still have conversations with their doctor about which birth control pills are right for them.
Research from Mexico, where women can obtain birth control pills over-the-counter, suggests that this availability does not stop women from visiting their doctors for screening tests such as Pap smears and breast exams, ACOG says.
Cost concerns
There are concerns that women who buy birth control pills over-the-counter would not be reimbursed by their health insurance. Efforts to improve access to birth control pills "should try to ensure that they won't increase out-of-pocket costs for women," said Dr. Kavita Nanda, who was involved writing the ACOG statement and is a scientist at the family planning nonprofit organization FHI 360.
Birth control pills range in price from $15 to $80 per month, or $180 to $960 per year.
In general, health insurance companies do not cover the cost of over-the-counter medications, said Janet Coffman, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, who researches health policy.
Under provisions of the Affordable Care Act that take effect in 2014, insurance companies will cover prescription contraception that is FDA approved, Coffman said. But it's not clear if that coverage would apply to over-the-counter medications, she said.
It's also unclear what the price of birth control would be if it became available over-the-counter, Coffman said. There are a number of generic oral birth control pills, and with competition, prices could come down, Coffman said.
Brindis said that she hopes "health plans recognize that it's far cheaper for them to cover the cost of birth control than it is to pay for the cost of pregnancy."
Leave a Comment:
I disagree entirely. You should not be allowed to get birth control pills without a prescription from a doctor. I know three women that have been in the ICU for blood clots caused by birth control in just 7 months. It is crucial for a doctor to know a patient's history before prescribing birth control as the risks for blood clots can be very high for certain people. Although the three women I know were at no risk for blood clots, they still were in the ICU.
I am in no means against birth control. I just think it is extremely important for people to know the risks and for their doctor to be the one to make the call. Blood clots are the third leading cause of death, do you really want that number to be higher than it already is?
www.theclotmustbefought.com
facebook.com/theclotmustbefought
I agree with Leslie. I cannot take them because of some potentially dangerous side effects that I've had. Had I not been under a doctor's care and guidance, things could've gotten really bad. There are too many potentially negative side effects to not consult a doctor first. It's not exactly a vitamin!
That is the whole point in the article. Any over the counter medicine...even vitamins....have potential for side effects. People should read before ingesting.
Blood clots are a serious side effect to having too much vitamin B12. Blood clots can lead to heart attack or stroke. It is important that any patient who has unexplained bleeding or bruising seek out a doctor regarding this condition. It is important for those who are taking a vitamin supplement such as B12 to take only the daily recommended dosage to avoid this potentially deadly side effect that can occur from too much of this vitamin.
Take a look at the side effects of Tylenol. They will scare the heck out of you.
Birth control should require a prescription.
My daughter had to take them to regulate her menstrual cycle, she was bleeding to soon and to long.
She had tried three different ones before the doctor got it right.
If my wife and/or I got it over the counter we would have most likely killed her.
I completely agree with you. There is no way birth control pills should be over the counter. Side effects can be far to dangerous and need to be discussed with a doctor. For instance a teen just starting birth control. Is she a smoker, will she even take that warning seriously? Hopefully she will when her doctor discusses it with her and explains the side effects which are compounded if you smoke and take the pill.
I agree as well, the side effects can be too severe. They gave me debilitating migraines and it took the doctors weeks to figure out the estrogen in the pills was the problem.
Another thing I didn't see mentioned is the frequency of patients NOT telling doctors all of the OTC meds they are on. If there is a problem and someone did not tell their doc they were taking OTC birth control, the doctor might treat them for the worng thing and make it much worse.
I am all for free birth control at health units as long as it continues to be provided under doctor supervision.
KEEP THE PRESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT!! Even some of these Physicians can't or don't pay attention to the Labels and Medication Warnings. You have Parents that over medicate their own children with over-the-counter children's cold & cough medicines because they don't want their children bothering them. Then the manufacturer is held responsible for these stupid poor excuses for parents. Our Government has made a very large segment of the population completely dependent on others for their existence. This segment has been groomed to always blame others for their own failures, just like O'Bama. Taking away the Prescription requirement for Birth-Control Pills is putting a target on the Companies that make these Meds. Why is it that only Females get breaks on their Sexual Medications and Males who have real Medical Issues don't get the same price breaks? Just asking!
Leslie,
Could you please cite your sources on blood clots being the current 3rd leading cause of death?
Because the CDC seems to contradict that. Even their most recent stats are only preliminary for 2011 and blood clots aren't even included in the top 15.
I'm not discounting the need for medical supervision for many medications, but when a study mentions that about HALF of U.S. pregnancies are unintended, that's a HUGE call for OTC contraceptives that don't rely on medical insurance coverage or significant monthly cost to the women.
Because let's not forget that WOMEN will be primarily footing the cost.
BTW Leslie Bartley---Are you an OB/GYN? I tend to take the recommendations of doctors and physician groups a little more seriously than scaremongerers.
I agree with keeping the prescription requirement but for an entirely different reason.
It makes women go to the OB/GYN for an annual exam.
I know many women who dread going to the girly doctor for an annual exam. They go (myself included) because they need to get their prescription refilled. If they didn't, they might not get around for those annual pap smears and mammograms until something started bothering them, pain, spotting, etc. Waiting to be symptomatic is no good when early detection can be the difference between life an death for many women.
So in the end, My opinion is that while allowing the pill to be purchased over the counter (and no longer covered by your prescription plan BTW but that's a whole other reason) might be beneficial as far as reducing unwanted pregnancies; ultimately it will be bad for women's health because it will reduce the number of women coming in for annual preventative screenings.
Also - just curious, has anyone here been prescribed acid blockers like Prevacid or Prilosec only to have them go OTC? Good luck getting your insurace to cover them now right? So what used to be a $10 copay for a monthly script is now costing me $30 a month at the drugtore. Yippee!!
The only problem with requiring a prescription is cost...what happens to those who cannot pay for the visit? We need a way to protect them as well, to ensure that all are treated in a fair way. Not everyone can afford a doctor and medicine. I can't even afford to get my pets treated for ear mites...what do we do in this situation?
But, but, but if BCP's go OTC all the women of the world will actually have to (GULP!) pay for them by themselves.
Ohhhhh nooooooooo, say it isn't so!
How will the Sandra Flunks of the world survive? She said that she and her bimbo girlfriends need $3,000 for 3 years in law school for her contraceptives to have recreational sex. Even though this article shows you can get them for $540, unless of course you need the Cadillac brand name variety.
ROTFLMAO!!!
This article debunks all that hysterical "war on women" nonsense Barrack Hussein and his chair sniffing minions tried to pull on Americans. We real Americans knew this was just more political rhetoric to confuse the unwashed masses, especially women, into voting for him.
It's sad that so many weak minded American's are so easily influenced by "Bread and Circuses" from the Liberal cabal.
Sean - maybe instead of lobbying to reduce the amount of care a woman received by making the pill go OTC the OB/GYNs should be lobbying to have free health clinics set up in every county and major metropolitan area of the country. Doctors could have a portion of their student loans (say one year's worth of loans for one year's worth of service) forgiven for doing a tour there. You can also have them seen by Nurse Practitioners or Midwives. This is the only way that the cost of medical care in this nation is truly going to go down, by allowing affordable access to doctors for preventative care instead of waiting to get sick before you go. The answer to women not being able to afford a doctor visit is not to give them prescription medication over the counter. They still need to see a doctor once a year.
What the doctors were trying to say, in a delicate way, is that over-the-counter birth control pills would help women avoid abortions.
I agree that the pill needs to be prescribed under a physician's supervision. There are differences in the estrogen/progesteron ratios and strengths that are effective for different women. Adusting these to prevent break through bleeding, breast tenderness and other factors just doesn't seem reasonable to do on an OTC, customer selection basis. The explanation of the effects of antibiotics and other meds on efficacy of contraceptives is an issue too. So then there's an increase in unplanned pregnancies in people who thought they were protected.
If 50% of pregnancies are unintended or unplanned; the conclusion drawn appears to be that lack of readily available birth control is the reason. It's also possible that people take risks and don't use birth control that is available; or choose not to use contraception and "hope" they don't get pregnant.
Not seeing this as a good idea.
Cassandra - no offense, but I don't think that it would have a significant impact. Most of the women I know who got knocked up and had an abortion weren't on the pill because they were not involved in a steady sexual relationship. I know that when I was single I didn't sleep around, I didn't get laid every weekend. And I certainly wasn't going to take the pill for 6 months when I wasn't getting any. So when I was at the beginning of a new relationship I planned to use condoms if it went that far. Safer that way anyhow since you don't know where that thing has been and you'd rather not think about it that early on. Of course, every now and then you get carried away in the moment and say "ah what the hell, what are the chances..." and then ooops you get a second pink line showing up in your bathroom 4 weeks later.
Why are women willing to poisen their bodies just to have sex, these drugs seriously interrupt a persons delicate rhythems, they make women more attractive sex partners of course but these are very dangerous drugs. I took them before developed lumps quit them only to have breast cancer 22 years later from exact same lump. In the Stone Age(1980) I lost the "love of my life" because my sister told me they were dangerous, my boyfriend found someone else he got mad because I was afraid of the pill, after 4 years of dating? That wasn't and never will be love. You are so much more than this, you beautiful young women, don't let pharmaceutical companies mess with your bodies, its not their problem if your breasts or reproductive organs get damaged from disease. Do you honestly think your average partner would risk his "manhood" for convenience. Please don't put this garbage in your bodies if you do don't say I didn't try to warn you. And I insist you try quit taking the pill and see how loving your boyfriends are, see how many hit the road, if they do Good For You!! Find another better man, they really are everywhere, you'd be surprised. Take care my little sisters don't be stupid about this.
a kenerley, BC pills help women with endometriosis, heavy bleeding, irregular periods, and severe acne, among other conditions. In many cases, BC pills help women preserve their fertility.
I was originally perscribed birth control to help regulate my menstral period and PCOS. It wasn't a way to make "sleeping around" easier, seeing as how I married the first man I ever slept with. We continued using birth control, even being married, until we felt we were ready to start a family, 5 years later. After the birth of my second child, I developed heart problems and the birth control I was taking conficted with my perscription with my heart. Not to mention the high blood pressure I developed. Without a doctor, I would have probably kept taking the same birth control and the results could have been devastating to my family.
Being affordable isn't the issue. Consumer safety should be first priority and a person ignorant to the side effects and conflicts with medication could easily harm themselves by taking birth control withouth a doctor who is trained in these sort of things.
They also help with Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, which I suffered from undiagnosed for 40 years.
A Kenerley, you have a very biased view of birth control pills. The ten years I took them were the healthiest of my life. All my health problems began when I stopped taking the pill. My PCOS went undiagnosed until it nearly killed me 4 years ago. Yes, PCOS can be fatal. I nearly hemorrhaged to death from a ruptured ovarian cyst. Birth control pills save lives.
Just wait until the Chrislamists get wind of this. They'll be bombing pharmacies that sell birth control and threatening women going in and out of drug stores. Oh joy.
I think that this would be a huge mistake. There are many different types and strengths of birth control pills. A doctor knows about other health issues the patient may have and can prescribe the appropriate form and dosage. A doctor can discuss any side effects that the person is experiencing and make adjustments a necessary in order to achieve the desired protection while minimizing any adverse effects. If they went OTC it would be up to the individual to simply guess at which is best for them. More often than not this guess would be based on which is cheapest, not which is the best for them based on their individual health needs. It may also result in people taking a strength of medication that is not sufficient to provide the desired protection, causing potentially serious consequences for both the woman and the fetus should she become pregnant while taking the birth control pills. Their are just too many variables that affect the choice of which birth control is best for an individual person. Add to this the fact that most insurance companies do not cover OTC medications and this may have the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of resulting in more women taking birth control it could result in fewer taking it because the out of pocket cost to the individual will likely go up if the medication goes OTC. Instead of a small co-pay for the birth control, the person would have to pay the entire cost.
I couldn't take them either and if I had gotten them otc I wouldn't have had a relationship with the doctor knowing when I started them, what kind, etc., and not only that...
Here we go trying to get them OTC so insurance companies get out of paying for them. I have a child on an allergy med that was prescription and covered. It went OTC and was still expensive, but now we have to pay for the whole thing ourselves...thanks.
So same thing will happen...funny timing on this, and it isn't safe enough to be otc. Not a good idea.
Hey, Xina the Awesome: Balloons pop!
Fortunately, I was (and am) married, and the faulty box of condoms had three rip before we gave up and I took the box back to the store and got my money back. I didn't keep track how much sooner or later the twins were born, but we had been talking about having another baby anyway.
No, I am in no way a health professional. But all four of the women I know that have been diagnosed with blood clots were misdiagnosed multiple times before actually being admitted which almost cost them their lives. So I don't trust doctors entirely, and I think they need to be better about letting patients know the symptoms of a blood clot.
Blood clots kill more people that AIDS, breast cancer and traffic accidents combined. Since I know 250 people that are dealing with or know someone dealing with a blood clot, I have a pretty good idea as I have been very involved in raising awareness.
Visit:
stoptheclot.org
clotconnect.org
Like I said, I am not against birth control or making it cost friendly, but you should still talk to a doctor before taking something every day, and they should tell you all the risks and symptoms. Tylenol does have scary side effects but it's not something your putting in your body on a daily basis (or you shouldn't be anyway).
I've done my homework, no I'm not a doctor, but I've read everything I can about blood clots since it has greatly impacted my life.
Young ones should have to see their doctors to get the proper perscribed pills according to their physical being. I wouldn't want my daughter to get a pill off the shelf...... things get mixed up..... Just not a good idea all around.
If that's the reason, let's ban sales of condoms without a prescription so that men get regular examinations, too. Too many do not.
Too much of the discussion here is based on personal anecdotes, not statistical evidence. If, say, bicycles were strictly regulated and there was a proposal to make them more widely available, we'd have thousands of people talking about how they or someone they knew had a bicycle accident and about how many wound up in the ICU in the last seven months. Everything has side effects. Too many people want a risk-free world. Yes, some women have problems with birth control pills, but most do not. This whole debate smacks of paternalism. If this was a proposal to somehow make it easier for men to get access to birth control, there wouldn't even be an argument. Women would still free to consult with their doctors about birth control if they don't feel comfortable with the matter. But, women who don't want the extra hassle of seeing a physician would be free to make their own decisions on the matter.
Xina, there's no need to receive an annual Pap/pelvic exam to take the pill. If the exam provided information necessary for the treatment, I'd agree with you. But a Pap smear doesn't inform the doctor of your risk of side effects. They're pretty much unrelated to each other.
Leslie, if the three women you know had no risk factors for clotting, exactly what good did the fact that their pills were prescribed do them? None. They were going to have clots whether they received the pill by prescription or OTC.
Agree w/Sandy and Barry. Unless a doc is going to do some sort of blood test to determine which pill a woman should take (which they don't), then they're just guessing too, which the woman could do herself w/o the $80 office visit. If she starts the pill and a week later starts having terrible headaches or some other side effect she's never experienced before, she'll be smart enough to think it could be the pill, stop taking it, and then see a doc or talk to a pharmacist. Woman are plenty smart to do this on their own.
Leslie.....on your first post it was three women. On your latest post it is four women that you know that had blood clots. Which is it?
I, however, think the reward outweighs the risks of blood clots. The article said that half of US pregnancies are unplanned. Pregnancies are dangerous enough for women that half consulted and planned with their doctor. Women have a parasite in them for 40 weeks!
Bart Conner posted it before on 1.3 but I think it needs repeating. Tylenol's side effects (especially the effect it has on a liver) is extremely dangerous also, especially for those who drink moderately (1-2 drinks a day), yet no one is pushing for a prescription requirement on that.
We’ll assume you are having trouble spelling and that you are referring to Christians and you couldn’t be further from the truth. Most Christians believe in birth control. Many of us simply don’t agree with abortion as to us it is murdering a defenseless child (and no, you don’t have to agree with me). The Christians who don’t believe in birth control are primarily in the Catholic sector (not sure what Islamists believe).
I actually have thought birth control pills should be available OTC for years. Birth control or lack thereof is not a societal problem. The problem is that many in the “modern” group do not ascribe anything special to sex and no longer abide by the idea that it should only be shared with a special person and since pregnancy, last time I heard, was a direct result of sex, I would prefer to see them on birth control rather than having abortions. On the safety issue, the Nyquil I take also has side effects but since I’m a grown woman with a brain I took the time to read the precautions, weighed the pros and cons and decided the gains were worth the risks. A young woman can discuss her concerns with a doctor or the pharmacists, allowing her to make an informed decision. If she can’t manage that, she probably shouldn’t be having sex as it also comes with risks.
Thanks to the yearly exam required to get my birth control pills, I found out quickly when my blood pressure started going up (hereditary high bp), and adjusted my pills to a safer version. Later on, when they started to recommend that patients with migraines not take estrogen birth control, I was informed of that on my next checkup, and changed to the depo shot.
Between all the different types of pills, varying side effects, and the lack of education about birth control in much of our country, I don't think we should go OTC with this. We'd probably end up with a bunch of lawsuits and it would just end up rx-only again.
I know four women with blood clots. Three of them, birth control was the for sure cause, the fourth it's still not so sure.
It was necessary for these women to go to the doctor first because if they hadn't their doctors would have continued to have misdiagnose them. Because their doctors knew their medical history they were the ones that sent the women to the ER.
You don't have agree since it's an opinion. I have just seen what happens to a 17 year old, two 20 year old, and 34 year old women and what they have had to go through because of the blood clots caused by birth control. If you had a loved one that was dealing with the condition, I have a feeling you would be on the same page.
And no, they wouldn't have had clots anyway. If they were not on the birth control they wouldn't have had clots. By seeing their doctors first, they were able to get to the ER before it was too late. If their doctors had not known what medications they were on, they would not have gotten the proper treatment. Because they felt something was wrong and called their primary physician after being misdiagnosed by other doctors, they were able to make it through.
So, the pills were prescribed, and they had clots, but having pills distributed by prescription only will prevent clots?
What saved them was rapid treatment, not having their meds prescribed instead of OTC. Not requiring a prescription does not preclude medical treatment. Do you think ER's don't treat accidental overdoses or adverse reactions to meds that are now OTC?
And blood clots do happen in the absence of birth control pills. They increase the chance, yes, but it's hard to prove that a particular clot was definitively caused by the pill.
For those quoting the CDC. Yes, I know that blood clots, specifically PE/DVT are not on the list. This is why:
CDC Takes the Lead:
Therefore, we need to "connect the dots", so that data on DVT/PE need to be presented in a fashion to overcome the underlying fragmentation that inadvertently trivializes the important public health problem. The problem was examined at a meeting convened by the America Society of Hematology last August. It is gratifying to see that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDD), Division of Blood Disorders (DBD) has taken the initiative to pursue a national surveillance system for DVT/PE in the US, with a goal towards definitively documenting the incidence of DVT/PE and defining the risk factors in selected patients groups where current data are very limited. Once these groups are identified, evidence-based preventive measures can be effectively promoted to make a substantial impact in reducing the current levels of morbidity and mortality.
The good news is that current and emerging therapeutic agents and other means of preventing DVT/PE are currently (or soon to be) available. The other good news is that once there is better surveillance data, the case for increased funding support for awareness, outreach, and education of patients/families, the general public and healthcare professionals will become far more compelling.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, the CDC does not have it listed, I know that. But Mayo Clinic, eMedicineHealth, Stop the Clot, Clot Connect and more have all come out with multiple research statistics stating it kills at least 300,000 people every year. Some state it as being even higher (650,000). It just depends on the year. You will see that 300,000 puts blood clots, specifically pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis above the third leading cause of death on CDC.
There is VERY little funding provided for blood clot research which is why it does not have the same media attention. It is extremely hard to raise awareness with very little money. This article explains that the numbers are all over because there is so much research trying to be done. But the ending statistic ends up being close to 300,000 deaths or more per year. As you will see the CDC is doing a SURVEILLANCE of blood clots right now which is why it is not yet on the list.
Blood Clot Statistics Vary - What to do About it?
WHAT'S IN A NUMBER?
By Alan P. Brownstein
2,000,000, 900,000, 350,000, 600,000 – how many blood clots occur in the US every year? 60,000, 100,000, 300,000 – how many deaths occur each year as a result of blood clots? Based on National Center for Health Statistics data, blood clots would be ranked either third (after cancer), fifth (after chronic lower respiratory disease) or eighth (after flu/pneumonia) leading cause of death by disease. Clearly the numbers are all over the place based on different scientific methodologies from which these numbers are derived or perhaps less than scientific assumptions. Whatever number is used for describing the incidence of blood clots or related mortality, it is clear that DVT/PE is a major public health burden in the US. But it is even more astounding when you consider that the ranking may be as high as third following heart disease and cancer. (Ref: Heitj et al. Blood 2005; 106:267a).
More problematic than the range of morbidity and mortality estimates is that thrombosis/thrombophilia does not appear at all in NCHS top 15 rankings because it is so often associated with other causes of death e.g. cancer. In many risk groups, DVT/PE is a secondary or tertiary concern compared to the focal point of that particular risk group (e.g., cancer patients, medically ill hospital admissions, hip/knee replacement patients). In the aggregate, however, the total number of individuals experiencing DVT/PE is enormous, one of the major public health burdens in the US, whatever the final number turns out to be. But because the total is fragmented it is difficult to sustain a prolonged and sharpened focus on DVT/PE (and for many of the underlying thrombophilias).
CDC Takes the Lead:
Therefore, we need to "connect the dots", so that data on DVT/PE need to be presented in a fashion to overcome the underlying fragmentation that inadvertently trivializes the important public health problem. The problem was examined at a meeting convened by the America Society of Hematology last August. It is gratifying to see that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDD), Division of Blood Disorders (DBD) has taken the initiative to pursue a national surveillance system for DVT/PE in the US, with a goal towards definitively documenting the incidence of DVT/PE and defining the risk factors in selected patients groups where current data are very limited. Once these groups are identified, evidence-based preventive measures can be effectively promoted to make a substantial impact in reducing the current levels of morbidity and mortality.
The good news is that current and emerging therapeutic agents and other means of preventing DVT/PE are currently (or soon to be) available. The other good news is that once there is better surveillance data, the case for increased funding support for awareness, outreach, and education of patients/families, the general public and healthcare professionals will become far more compelling.
Numbers from the Surgeon General
On September 15, 2008, the landmark "The Surgeon General's Call to Action (CTA) to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism" was released. The CTA, providing a much needed public health focus on DVT/PE presented a range of "350,000 to 600,000" DVTs per year with "at least 100,000 deaths". The CTA underscored the problem of "gaps in application and awareness of evidence-based interventions". But who is going to pay attention to these "gaps" unless there is an effective and easy way of identifying those who are a greatest risk and would be responsive to preventive intervention(s).
What is NBCA to Do?
NBCA is a patient led and science/data driven organization. What are we to do about the vast array of numbers that are used to represent DVT/PE-related morbidity and mortality? Even though NBCA has used 900,000 DVT/PEs and 300,000 deaths per year, I believe it makes sense for NBCA and all organizations concerned with this issue to speak with a unified voice and to rally around the Surgeon General's numbers at this time with the understanding that CDC is following a path that will lead to a greater scientific consensus. Recently, in preparing a document seeking funding support for NBCA's Website, I stated that the Surgeon General recognizes "the public health urgency that 350,000 – 600,000 Americans have blood clots every year leading to at least 100,000 deaths…Recent data out of the Mayo Clinic (J. Heit et al) suggest the number of blood clots may even be higher: closer to 900,000, and nearly 300,000 deaths each year. Perhaps this is the way we should present the data while at the same time, providing as much support as we can for CDC's surveillance efforts.
www.stoptheclot.org/News/article153
Sandy, I didn't say getting them through a doctor would prevent clots. There is no way for a doctor to tell the future and some people can be on birth control and nothing will happen. Others will form blood clots.
But it was important for them to see a doctor so a doctor could tell them the risks and symptoms beforehand. It would be ideal if everyone read the warning labels, but the fact of the matter is they don't. People still put their babies in the Bumbo and set it on the counter and they fall out and get hurt or worse, die. The warning label clearly states, "don't put the Bumbo on a surface other than the floor." People don't tend to read the warning labels, or they blame it on the company anyway.
I think inexpensive birth control is a great idea. I think avoiding a doctor to get it, is not. I just think it is important to talk to a well-informed health professional so they will tell you the risks and the symptoms before putting something in your body that could be harmful. Knowing the symptoms can save your life and if people don't read the warning labels, the chance of catching it early is very slim.
I think this is a fantastic idea. one of the reasons that many women don't use the pill is because it is such a hassle to get it. I don't think the professional organization for OB/GYN's would make this recommendation lightly. the risk of blood clots is minute given the number of women who take the Pill, and it is much more effective than any other contraceptive method except the IUD
If you don't need a prescription to have an abortion, then you shouldn't have to have one for birth control pills.
Getting pregnant is a risky venture, in and of itself, and all sorts of complications can arise that are harmful to a woman and her unborn child. The mortality rate for women and their babies are still way too high, even in the U.S. Not every woman will have bad side effects. I know many women who had no side effects, including me and my sister.
Saying that, I do believe it is important for women to ask their doctor, first, or at least let them know they're taking it across the counter. Doctors normally want to take all medical information - what medicines, vitamins, etc. that you're taking - so they can monitor their health.
Providing it without a prescription should be limited by age, also. Just think, there wouldn't be any furor over whether a company should provide it in their health plans, since there has been a lot of arguments involving this very thing.
Allie, I see your point and I can appreciate the hassle people have to go through. But if it was such a small risk it would not be the third leading cause of death today where it wasn't breaking the top 20 just years ago. Birth control is used more today than ever before, not necessarily to prevent pregnancy.
My best friend, friend from high school, and boss have all been in the ICU for blood clots from birth control this year. That is not a small number. Blood clots kill more people than breast cancer, car accidents and AIDS combined. They were at no risk for blood clots and if their doctor had not known their family history or personal history for that matter they could have been the one of three that die from pulmonary embolism.
I'm not saying they shouldn't get it, I am just saying they should definitely talk to their doctor first so their doctor can tell them the symptoms. If they know the symptoms, they can at least get themselves to the ER if they experience a blood clot. Only 6% of Americans know the symptoms of a blood clot.
Any drug should be prescribed by a doctor. Especially when someone can purchase it for another person, especially drugs that could alter the human body in way that would be negative. Any prescribed drugs, medications should come with a doctor consultation to ensure it is right for someone.
You also have to think of the health insurance aspect. My insurance will NOT cover over the counter drugs, they have to be prescribed by a doctor.
Oh, please approve this! I can't remember my doctor warning me about blood clots, etc., so I don't see why I have to worry about getting an appointment with a doctor when they don't give me any more information than I can get by reading the documentation that comes along with the pill. It's so frustrating that I can't get my prescription renewed without having to pay the doctor to write out a piece of paper.
However, I do believe that there should be age limitations (similar to alcohol/cigarettes/tobacco, etc.) on those who are able to purchase the pill OTC. While I'm perfectly capable of reading the literature that accompanies the pill, I'm not sure that a 13-year old would understand it, and I would hate for a bunch of young girls to think there are no risks associated with taking them, and be able to do it without proper guidance, oversight, or parental knowledge.
Jeneepoo,
You, my dear, need a new doctor.
And I am sure you read every word right? <sarc off>
While blood clots may be an important cause of death, birth control is not at all the largest contributor to blood clots--usually, obesity , smoking, and long stretches of not moving (like a long flight) are the top causes.
Use of BCP is not the third highest cause of death today. Where do you get such stuff?
I love that first line Kris1234. I think it is a great idea, i dont think that they should put it on the shelf for you to pick up and purchase but i think going to the doctor for the first time and getting the right test done to figure out which one is the right BC for your system is a good idea. After your Test results you should get one prescription for BCP, After your first visit to the pharmacist you should not need another one. Whatever pharmacy you go should keep a record of your medications, so when you go to get your BCP over the counter they can keep a track of how many times you come and make sure its the one you got your presciption for. I HOPE THIS MAKE SENSE! Don't have a better way of saying it Sorry! Also have one last thing to say; having a baby is just as dangerous as buying BCP over the counter, like my grandmother say: When you get pregnant, you have one foot in the grave and one out.
It's never been a "hassle" to get the pill - that's all hype & you know it. That's just crap from people who don't think they should need to see a doctor before getting the pill.
BC pills require a prescription - we should keep it that way.
Get a new doctor. That is dangerous and irresponsible.
There are too many people who do not tell their doctor about OTC meds for this to really be safe. It's available for free at any health unit already if you see the doc, it should stay that way.
I would just like to point out that the article does have something wrong. The age to receive the emergency contraception over the counter is actually 17 years of age and older. Please check your facts because this change occurred over 2 years ago.
I would also like to point out that there are many over the counter contraceptives already available such as male and female condoms and spermicide. While these options are not as effective as birth control (condoms typical failure use = 15% and spermicide typical failure use = 26% versus birth control typical failure = 6%), birth control has other risk factors that need to be addressed. To be more specific, women who are obese need to be on a higher rate of estrogen, women with psychiatric disorders may have medications that interact with their birth control, and women who smoke are recommended to have a progestin-only contraceptive to decrease the risk for clots. I know that someone else mentioned this but annual or biennial pap smears are recommended for women and without being required to go to the doctor will decrease this important screening recommendation.
These medications should be more accessible to women, but I think the majority of women have an issue with the cost of their medication and the cost of the doctor visits. When Obamacare is fully in effect, this will be less of an issue and the issue will probably be put on the back burner.
As far as blood clots and any other possible side effects go... we are able to purchase alcohol, tobacco, fast food, and a variety of pain killers and other harmful drugs and chemicals over the counter but when it comes to using something for birth control then we must assume that everyone is a complete idiot and must be advised by a doctor in order to purchase the drug. If anyone is already stupid enough to purchase an over the counter drug and pop it in their mouth without reading the directions or any of the warnings then I would consider it Darwinism in action if they were to suffer any side effects. America needs to stop taking this stance of assuming that everyone is a moron that is incapable of researching for themselves.
A pregnancy is more life-threatening than an abortion any day, in spite of what ignorant conservatives spout about them.
Sarah Leigh, some women have allergies to latex and spermicides. I do. Just FYI. My husband refused to have a vasectomy so I had to have my tubes tied.
I sure do love the concept, but agree that BC pills should be prescribed by a physician that periodically examines the women.
@Xina, you ARE awesome indeed! I like your idea of adding more health care centers for women to be seen for family planning purposes. Definitely a win-win, as potential problems of ANY kind could be discovered early. An gyn exam is usually very thorough, and I'm going to guess that most people, not even just women, don't have a thorough physical after the age of about 16.
Obamacare covers many preventative services, or it will, however I only know what pertains to Medicare. Does anyone know if there will be a change in private insurance where GYN care will be offered with no-copay, etc? That would be fantastic for women, and those that love them.
@JoeB--This isn't a political issue, it's a women's issue and will strengthen and empower our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.
I guarantee men WILL benefit from empowered women.
"Any drug should be prescribed by a doctor"? So you don't even take a Tylenol or Advil without a prescription?
And Cayman, which tests are done to decide which pill is right for a patient? Pretty much the only test an OB/GYN does is a physical exam and Pap smear before prescribing the pill. The Pap smear won't tell you if your particular formula is going to cause blood clots, nausea, headaches, etc. When I took one pill that caused severe mood swings, my doctor just switched me to another, with no tests. Problems solved.
Sandy,
This is giving people artificial hormones. The risks of developing problems from mis-use is greater than with aspirin or tylenol.
Second, the BC pills also have interactions with other drugs that are much worse than what aspirin will do in conjunction with other drugs.
This is CRAZY.... birth control should not need a perscription... they should be BANNED 100%.
STOP MURDERING THE UNBORN...
Leslie Bartley again where are you getting your information that blood clots are the third leading cause of death? The CDC website clearly states that in 2011 (since 2012 is not over yet) that the third leading cause of death in 2011 was chronic lower respiratory diseases. Strokes were listed as number four and if that's what your considering as blood clots being the cause, not all blood clots cause strokes (yes, I know they're caused by blood clots, but not all clots cause strokes) so you cannot group them all together in one nice neat little package. In actuality, the CDC categorizes blood clots as Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism (DVT/PE). Strokes are listed as Cerebrovascular diseases. I understand your concern and worry considering you had people in your life who have suffered from blood clots, but I ask that you please get your information and statistics correct before distributing your opinion (statements without facts) to the masses.
As far as needing a prescription for BCP, I completely agree with many who say that prescriptions should be required because of all the side effects which can occur. For those who use the argument that this forces a woman to go into the OBGYN and get an annual exam, well that argument is moot, considering they just changed the "rule" from a woman having to go in every year for a PAP and exam to now they only have to go in every two years. So the argument that woman have to go in yearly and get checked out to get a prescription renewal is false. However, in situations like my own where a year ago my doctor discovered pre-cancerous cervical cells, woman are then encouraged to go to the Dr. yearly and have an exam, but that is preventative care in order to make sure "bad" cells have not regrown.
Also, the cost of birth control without insurance covering it can be outrageous. My younger sister was given the wrong brand of birth control once and our insurance would not cover it without her knowledge until the bill came and she was being charged $96.00 per pack and for those of you who do not know, most pharmacy's give your BCP to you in three month intervals. So my sister ended up having to pay $288 because the pharmacy messed up and gave her a brand that would not be covered by insurance.
I say keep it the way it is, but that's because I myself know, without my health insurance covering my BCP and I take a generic brand, I would not be able to afford BCP OTC.
d. marks, it's known as a silent killer for a reason.
Visit: www.theclotmustbefought.com/information
Visit: www.stoptheclot.org
Visit: www.clotconnect.org
"Every year, more people die from preventable blood clots than from breast cancer, AIDS and traffic accidents combined," said Dr. Samuel Goldhaber, Chairman of the Venous Disease Coalition. "It is so important to raise awareness about DVT and PE because although blood clots are common, few Americans have sufficient knowledge about blood clots and how to prevent them."
"One person every minute will be diagnosed with DVT in the United States. One person every six minutes will die from a PE in the United States." -Clot Connect
"Recent data from the Mayo Clinic suggest the number of blood clots may be close to 900,000 and nearly 300,000 deaths each year." -Stop the Clot
Leslie Bartley, I wasn't saying that it wasn't a cause or a reason for death but it is not a leading cause according to the CDC. Where have you seen listed that it is the 3rd leading cause of death is what I want to know?
The first website you listed does list tons of information but it does not say who the sources of the information are besides Stop The Clot. Also the website does state that they are not health professionals and are just trying to get the word out. I wanted to know where the actual medical proof and statistics from a medical accredited source are that states blood clots are the 3rd leading cause of death are. I'm in no way saying that blood clots aren't something to worry about as they are and I've had people within both sides of my family that have suffered from strokes and even aneurisms. But my point is, blot clots can form for any reason or from any medication. The people in my family who have had health problems that can be, but were not necessarily attributed clots, were all men and the last time I checked none of the men in my family were on birth control.
Getting the facts out there are fantastic but if your going to put such facts out there make sure the sources are credible resources. I would take information from the CDC over the information from "The Cloth Must Be Fought" because they the CDC lists credible medical sources and the latter does not. That was my only point. I'm not saying your wrong or that blot clots aren't a health issue that need light shed on them, but that your sources aren't as credible as a source such as the CDC.
DB,
Hydrocortisone is a steroid, too, but it's available in creams OTC.
Meds that are already OTC have plenty of interactions, too. And why do you think so much attention has been given lately to the effects of Tylenol on the liver? Don't wash it down with a glass of wine. And don't take aspirin if you also take Coumadin or Plavix without talking to your doctor - could be bad news, even though aspirin is OTC.
Even foods have interactions with medications. Take statins? Don't drink grapefruit juice (holds true for several meds). Take Coumadin? Watch your intake of leafy greens.
Should we regulate grapefruit juice or veggies?
d.marks,
Stop the Clot is the National Blood Clot Alliance, it deals with everything dealing with blood clots. All the statistics on theclotmustbefought.com come from there because they are a credible source.
Yes, the CDC does not have it listed, I know that. But Mayo Clinic, eMedicineHealth, Stop the Clot, Clot Connect and more have all come out with multiple research statistics stating it kills at least 300,000 people every year. Some state it as being even higher (650,000). It just depends on the year. You will see that 300,000 puts blood clots, specifically pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis above the third leading cause of death on CDC.
There is VERY little funding provided for blood clot research which is why it does not have the same media attention. It is extremely hard to raise awareness with very little money. This article explains that the numbers are all over because there is so much research trying to be done. But the ending statistic ends up being close to 300,000 deaths or more per year. As you will see the CDC is doing a SURVEILLANCE of blood clots right now which is why it is not yet on the list.
Blood Clot Statistics Vary - What to do About it?
WHAT’S IN A NUMBER?
By Alan P. Brownstein
2,000,000, 900,000, 350,000, 600,000 – how many blood clots occur in the US every year? 60,000, 100,000, 300,000 – how many deaths occur each year as a result of blood clots? Based on National Center for Health Statistics data, blood clots would be ranked either third (after cancer), fifth (after chronic lower respiratory disease) or eighth (after flu/pneumonia) leading cause of death by disease. Clearly the numbers are all over the place based on different scientific methodologies from which these numbers are derived or perhaps less than scientific assumptions. Whatever number is used for describing the incidence of blood clots or related mortality, it is clear that DVT/PE is a major public health burden in the US. But it is even more astounding when you consider that the ranking may be as high as third following heart disease and cancer. (Ref: Heitj et al. Blood 2005; 106:267a).
More problematic than the range of morbidity and mortality estimates is that thrombosis/thrombophilia does not appear at all in NCHS top 15 rankings because it is so often associated with other causes of death e.g. cancer. In many risk groups, DVT/PE is a secondary or tertiary concern compared to the focal point of that particular risk group (e.g., cancer patients, medically ill hospital admissions, hip/knee replacement patients). In the aggregate, however, the total number of individuals experiencing DVT/PE is enormous, one of the major public health burdens in the US, whatever the final number turns out to be. But because the total is fragmented it is difficult to sustain a prolonged and sharpened focus on DVT/PE (and for many of the underlying thrombophilias).
CDC Takes the Lead:
Therefore, we need to “connect the dots”, so that data on DVT/PE need to be presented in a fashion to overcome the underlying fragmentation that inadvertently trivializes the important public health problem. The problem was examined at a meeting convened by the America Society of Hematology last August. It is gratifying to see that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDD), Division of Blood Disorders (DBD) has taken the initiative to pursue a national surveillance system for DVT/PE in the US, with a goal towards definitively documenting the incidence of DVT/PE and defining the risk factors in selected patients groups where current data are very limited. Once these groups are identified, evidence-based preventive measures can be effectively promoted to make a substantial impact in reducing the current levels of morbidity and mortality.
The good news is that current and emerging therapeutic agents and other means of preventing DVT/PE are currently (or soon to be) available. The other good news is that once there is better surveillance data, the case for increased funding support for awareness, outreach, and education of patients/families, the general public and healthcare professionals will become far more compelling.
Numbers from the Surgeon General
On September 15, 2008, the landmark “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action (CTA) to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism” was released. The CTA, providing a much needed public health focus on DVT/PE presented a range of “350,000 to 600,000” DVTs per year with “at least 100,000 deaths”. The CTA underscored the problem of “gaps in application and awareness of evidence-based interventions”. But who is going to pay attention to these “gaps” unless there is an effective and easy way of identifying those who are a greatest risk and would be responsive to preventive intervention(s).
What is NBCA to Do?
NBCA is a patient led and science/data driven organization. What are we to do about the vast array of numbers that are used to represent DVT/PE-related morbidity and mortality? Even though NBCA has used 900,000 DVT/PEs and 300,000 deaths per year, I believe it makes sense for NBCA and all organizations concerned with this issue to speak with a unified voice and to rally around the Surgeon General’s numbers at this time with the understanding that CDC is following a path that will lead to a greater scientific consensus. Recently, in preparing a document seeking funding support for NBCA’s Website, I stated that the Surgeon General recognizes “the public health urgency that 350,000 – 600,000 Americans have blood clots every year leading to at least 100,000 deaths…Recent data out of the Mayo Clinic (J. Heit et al) suggest the number of blood clots may even be higher: closer to 900,000, and nearly 300,000 deaths each year. Perhaps this is the way we should present the data while at the same time, providing as much support as we can for CDC’s surveillance efforts.
www.stoptheclot.org/News/article153
Great passion against clots there, Leslie. If MDs say the benifits outweigh the risks, then the benifits of BC outweigh the risk of clots specifically due to BC. I'm sure the MDs in question are up to speed on clots and clot related issues. If not, perhaps a public service advertisment campaign would suffice to warn women. A MD telling me "beware of x", writing a script, and sending me a bill has never been helpful.
If there's one thing we need more of in the US, it's people not rushing into having kids they're not ready to provide for. OTC birth control is a win for all.
Jonathan: If you want to prevent killing the unborn, you should be fighting for FREE birth control. Birth control doesn't kill--it simply prevents anything from starting.
Notice how the discussion went right on, ignoring you? Take the nonsense elsewhere.
The plan is to get payment for birth control medication out from under Insurance Company responsibility.
If the pills are not prescrilbed, the insurance companies don't have to pay for them.
For insurance companies and churches that hire insurance companies --- Problem solved.
For women --- Although access may be easier, they will be paying $90 to $900 per month for medication they may really need to avoid serious medical conditions, not just unwanted children.
The insurance companies and drug companies did the same thing for Anti HIstamines needed to suppress allergies. Anti Histamines are no longer paid for by insurance companies.
I see that you ate lots of fish. You are absolutely correct. Brilliant!
$90-$900/MONTH?????? I think you mean YEAR!
Really? Mine pays for them.
You just have to have a conspiracy nut somewhere. The only place generic birth control pills cost $900/month is on your home planet, and most people won't drink the kool-aid required to get there. And did you just argue that churches want to make it easier to get birth control? Be careful bicfj...the shadow agents are watching you.
many insurance companies will still pay for OTC's if the doctor writes a scrip for them. and why in the world are you under the impression that BC pills cost $90 to $900 a month? most of them can be had a generic's for $15-20. I honestly don't get this whole 'make the insurance company pay' concept anyway. it's no wonder that insurance is so outrageously expensive, when people can't be bothered to pay for simple crap like allergy pills or ibuprofin for themselves. it's like if people expected their auto insurance to pay for every oil change and set if tires, then cry because their coverage costs them zillions of dollars a year. I haven't been able to afford insurance for almost a decade, yet my doctor manages to choose generic meds than can be gotten fairly cheaply from the neighborhood pharmacy. and it's obvious from all the furor over the health care law that many women haven't been getting insurance coverage for contraception anyway. a lot of people would rather pay $15 and buy their own BC pills than face the much larger and more painful issue of how to deal with an unintended pregnancy
Bigfj! $90 to $900 per month for borth control? What does the $900 include ,private guard service to prevent you from having sex! You are just another feminist freeloader looking for a handout.Why should I pay for your birth control pills,i'm not f-en you.Get your boyfriends to pay birth control.He or they are the only ones getting any benefit from it.My god,we have gone crazy with the "gemmys".Gemmy this,gemmy that.Why should I have to grow up and be responsible for myself.Don't even use the analogy of insurance paying for Viagra.Not every man takes Viagra but almost every women over 18 takes birth control.When are you going to stop relying on the government for everything Go out and get it and pay for it yourself.What a pathetic waste of skin you are!
Well, Maso, then I assume you would rather have the government pay for welfare babies.
Not everyone can take generic forms of BC pills. Some name brand BC pills can be more expensive, though I do agree that $900 for a month's supply does seem excessive.
@mas098 You would be the first to whine about people on welfare sucking the system dry. Family planning will reduce unwanted pregnancies PERIOD.
The sex part is almost irrelevant to this discussion, although I am curious if you've ever been asked to pay for your partners contraception.
I agree with you. I don't have anything against contraception, but because I don't think that concept of insurance is to pay predictable, normal expenses of living. Insurance is for "spreading the risk" and covering relatively uncommon expenses that you can't easily cover on your own. If something occurs frequently, then it becomes very expensive to insure. The only reason insurance covers things like contraception, "wellness" visits and so forth is that the people who use the insurance usually don't pay the premiums -- they're paid by their employer. If people had to pay for their insurance, it would cover the major, critical expenses that might bankrupt you, but that's it. Think of homeowner's insurance. People for it themselves, so it covers the basics. It doesn't include payment for maid service, for example.
Wow, the FDA has to prove it is safe for otc. what about all the birth control that is now in law suits because they can cause blood clots and other issues? These drugs were approved by the FDA. It's all a big money game.
Uh......in lawsuits because of ambulance chasers. There is almost nothing that can happen to you today, or any drug that exists today that there is not a commercial on TV today to call "this number" to talk to a lawyer as you may be eligible to sue.
Lawyers= rabid Obamy supporters
No, Larry, it's per month. Some are that expensive. Why do you think women are so pissed off?
We pay our insurance premiums and when we have endometriosis, PCOS, dysmenorrhea or some other medical problem and we're prescribed a $900./month BCP and our insurance company refuses to cover it, we get righteously angry.
That's what Sandra Fluke spoke about. If you listened to her speak, you would know this. Limbaugh did not report correctly on what she said. No one on Fox News has correctly related the details of her speech. It's despicable how her words have been twisted.
um, peridot, OTC medicines are prescribed by doctors everyday, and paid for by insurance companies. large dose ibuprophen, tagmet/zantac/prilosec, benadryl, and hundreds of others. i've watched pharmacists go pull a medicine off the shelf, slap a sticker on it, and bag it up with the rest of my meds. those that have insurance will continue to get prescriptions for your birth control, and your insurance will still cover it. those that have no insurance will be able to buy theirs without the added expense of a doctor visit every few months. personally, i think this sounds like a pretty good idea, but i'd think it would have to be coupled with an information campaign- 'you shouldn't just pick a medicine willy-nilly, you should consult a doctor to choose a medicine and be seen periodically.'
You don't understand what "over the counter" means.
@sikchimp
Some insurance companies covers it with a doctor's prescription; some don't. My current group plan specifically excludes "any medications available without a physician's prescription regardless of whether they are prescribed by a licensed physician."
OTC generic meds are cheap enough you don't generally need insurance to cover the cost. Antihystamines were given as an example. Many antihystamines aren't much more than $0.01 per dose. Amazon bulk diphenhydramine for instance.
I'm not saying BC will get that cheap, but you'll see the price come way down on OTC generic birth control when there's an Equate brand:) Anyone will be able to afford it.
Health care costs has to be reduced. This plan reduces it by shifting the risk from Doctors, directly to the patients. It is just another policy.
Wow go figure. Personal responsibility. What a concept. <sarc off>
Personal responsibility is just a myth. Just call obama, he will personally deliver them.
Personal responsibility - women who are positive that they have enough children should go ahead and have a tubal ligation. No more worry about taking the pill, or any side effects.
Munk,if you think health care costs are going to go down with ObamyCare,you are delutional.If anything,tthey will ascend even faster than they currently are.Or,we won't have a health care industry.Health care is the on Big Union,particularly SEIU,hit list next.They have already had head way in California and hospital cost are out of sight.Wait until the union housekeepers going on strick and the union nurses refuse to cross the line.You are going to have chaos and bedlam as the order of the day.I hope you are not over 65 because you will be in the first test group to determine how much health care,if you, you might get.You Obamites will live to curse yourself for voting this turd back into office.Dont you get it! He hates America and everything we stand for and will do everything he can in his power to diminish our worth as a nation.
According to Carolart, birth control is solely the responsibility of women. Sexist.
@Maso98, all the hatred I see these days comes from the right. It's in your post and the posts of everyone who wants to secede from the Union because Obama was reelected. I despised Bush and was unhappy he had two terms but I never wanted to secede from the Union. Nor was I a miserable git who fired anyone because Bush was reelected.
What a miserable hateful bunch of spiteful people you all are. Those of you who claim to be Christian, none of you are remotely walking with the Lord. Jesus said, 'Love they neighbor' and 'Love thy enemy.' You're all too full of hatred to be Christian and you're all preaching the word of hate and spite. Jesus would weep again.
The hate you claim Obama's full of is your own hate, Maso. You're projecting it onto him. It's all yours. Look into the mirror, you'll see it looking back at you there.
I agree Munk that healthcare costs should be reduced. However, the cost of BCP's to the Insurance Companies is just a blip on the radar. Maybe they should make insulin OTC instead?
"Starstrz
I agree Munk that healthcare costs should be reduced. However, the cost of BCP's to the Insurance Companies is just a blip on the radar. Maybe they should make insulin OTC instead?"
They do have OTC insulin Bush Jr. signed it into law on his last term as president. You can get Human Insulin OTC. Walmart carries this brand as Relion Novolin R,N, 70/30 for no script. $24.98 USD per bottle.
Carolart, perhaps men who know they've already had enough children should get vasectomies. Cheaper, less invasive, shorter recovery time, easier to reverse if there are second thoughts down the road. But that would mean scalpels near the goods, right?
Wow, my generation of women were happy to have a safe, easy, reliable, convenient way to not get pregnant when we had sex. My daughters are all like "why doesn't HE take responsibility?" what happened here?
These doctors are right no presciption needed. Women know about their bodies and if there is a problem can then go to a doctor.
bw. I think the article stated that certain women, those who have history of breast cancer and/or high blood pressure should not use them. Well, if you are not under a doctor's care for those conditions, and you buy OTC, you'd be in for a world of hurt. How many women have home blood pressure testing equipment? How do they know they DON'T have high blood pressure?
I for one, haven't been on the pill for many, many years. However, my doc did find high blood pressure a couple years ago, and I have a home BP kit. I monitor myself at home.
You know, CONDOMS don't require a prescription, and any woman out there, should be purchasing them for herself if she wants to be sexually active. If her "guy" doesn't want to buy them, she should have them for her own protection. I don't think birth control pills should be OTC, as there are just so many things the drugs do to your system, without you being aware.
THe problem with condoms is that they REQUIRE two people to agree. Birth control just needs one.
women think they know about their bodys tell its to late. blood clots can happen in a second then its to late your dead. anything with risk should be talk to by a doctor and prescribed. this just makes it safer for any women. plus its just common sense to ask your doctor about birth control, or any thing in pill form that can help/mess with your body.
Bart - shouldn't we be encouraging both partners to be responsible and make that decision together?? In my opinion, absolutely! It is extremely chauvinistic to put that responsibility solely on the woman by expecting her take birth control and for the man to not worry about it at all.
Jason, do you call your doctor every time you have a headache and take a Tylenol. Do you know what that stuff can do to your liver?
Anyone who goes into most pharmacies has blood pressure checking equipment. It is free and very easy to use.
The doctors don't check your hormones before prescribing BC pills, they try one they think will be good and if you call them back complaining about the side effects they switch to another - nothing very scientific there.In 20 years of using BC pills, I never had any kind of test that checked for blood clots(even a description of what to look for as far as symptoms), or an endocrine test of any kind to determine what type of hormones would be best suited to me individually.
I think the initial prescription should be by a doctor but then if you're fine, refills should just be ongoing until further notice. Paying for an office visit once a year is a pain just to get another 12 months.
But your health may change in that year. I have to go every six months to my doctor to check and see if I am still able to take my blood pressure and cholesterol medicine and have blood tests to make sure nothing has changed. I sure as hell would not want anything to creep up on me and get out of control.
husseincare picks up that bill for you. I meant to say, the tax payers pick up that bill for you. I am not saying you don't pay taxes.
That once a year office visit generally includes your pap smear and other annual testing that could save your life. It's not a con game to get money every year. I've seen the tragedy of ovarian, cervical, and other reproductive cancers and you do not want to skip preventative care that can catch those things early enough to survive.
The ONLY reason I set foot in a gynecologists office was for birth control pills. It is a con game. You don't actually need a pap smear every year.
Ok my health insurance never covered birth control so when my daughter was at college and she needed to pick up her pills...she wasted money to see her doctor for him to prescribe what she could have paid full freight for anyway......she had to pay 55 dollars...point being...not all medical insurance coverages cover birth control....there are many medicines that you shouldnt need a prescription for....like antibitoics...we are adults and can read the label...I have to find a new doctor because I think he has stock in those low dosage one a day antibiotics....that never work on me and I have to see him twice...wow and he gets paid twice...I am like a horse and need a minumum of 500 mgs in order to fight my virus....most doctors disagree since they would lose money by you visiting your pharmacist...which is just as capable of saying buy this one instead of that one and it would be a free visit.....
Why do you think they cost so much. One word, L-I-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. They have to charge to cover the costs of lawsuits because people don't read and lie to their doctors about certain things they are embarrassed to tell them. Then, the drug company has to pay because "It wasn't clear and I didn't understand it to read that".
Talk about reading the label - antibiotics have no effect whatsoever on viruses . . . ..
As a pharmacist, I disagree with this recommendation that birth control should be available over the counter. There are possible side effects that the patient should discuss with her doctor - I can tell you from experience that many people treat retail pharmacy no differently than McDonald's: get in, get their meds, and get out. They are "too busy" to stop and listen to pertinent information they should get about their medications. I doubt very much whether all women would wait at the counter for the pharmacist to go over the risks and benefits of taking birth control and determine whether this would be a safe medication for them to take.
And Paul - by all means, if you feel the need to change physicians go right ahead, but first let me say that antibiotics should NOT be available over the counter for many reasons, not the least of which is that we already have a huge problem with antibiotic resistance, in part because of overuse of antibiotics. Those "low dosage one a day antibiotics" will not treat your viral infection as you indicated (antibiotics will do absolutely nothing to treat a virus, they will only help with bacterial infections). Antibiotics prescribed for a viral illness only contribute to antibiotic resistance.
carolart, I caught that one myself. Just goes to show.
I have to disagree about the OTC antibiotics. There is already overusage of antibiotics causing bacterial superstrains. I'm a medical transcriptionist, and off the top of my head I can name 2 people who have died of a simple urinary tract infection caused by organisms resistant to all known antibiotics. Comparing antibiotics to birth control pills is apples to oranges.
Opening another can of worms here, but from my experience and what I type every day, there are way too many nuisance cases of patients going to the ER for every little sniffle, bruise, scrape. People need to learn to take care of themselves with what they have available before running to the ER, Urgent Care or what have you. Those cases are the reason for the high cost of healthcare. I can't tell you how many notes I type daily of people that started coughing the day before and run in for antibiotics the next day, or diarrhea that started during the night and they run right away to the doctor. A virus can take up to 2 weeks to run its course...wait it out. Symptomatic care. Go to the pharmacy, get some Tylenol, ibuprofen, Imodium or what you need to treat your symptoms. I can see if you have a temp of 101 for several days or something, but people DON'T help themselves. They expect doctors to give them a magic pill and suddenly you feel better when in reality, it just takes TIME.
Antibiotics don't work against viruses, Paul. Don't be idiotic. If they did we could cure HIV and AIDS with penicillin. Think about it.
That is rich. So you are an expert in microbiology and know which antibiotic is needed to treat your "virus"? You realize that antibiotics are to treat bacteria and that a given antibiotic is only effective against certain types of bacteria? You are so misguided I don't even know where to start beyond that.
Opening another can of worms here, but from my experience and what I type every day, there are way too many nuisance cases of patients going to the ER for every little sniffle, bruise, scrape.
I agree in general. I do not believe in going to the doctor for each sniffle and I understand that low grade fevers help fight infections. However, because my 6yr old daughter ran a low grade fever off and on twice since the school year started and missed a total of 5 days I have to show up for a hearing next week to prove she is not a truant. If I do not show up, I face criminal prosecution and fines despite explaining the situation to her teacher each day she was sick. The school system (and most jobs) do not except someone just saying they were sick. There must be proof in the form of a $100+ visit to the doctor or a person is not sick. I feel this mentality more than anything else drives people to the ER and the doctor's office at each sniffle.
The mere thought of people being able to buy antibiotics without a prescription makes my skin crawl. Like there isn't overuse of them now, it will be a hundred fold without the gatekeepers.
I'm all for easier access and lower cost birth control but I have a concern with it being OTC. There would be nothing in her medical records about being on a type of birth control and some day later lets say she is in an accident or emergency visit to an ER. There are so many different things that interact that could it pose a life threatening situation if something was given or done in an emergency without knowing she is on birth control?
The emergency department is supposed to ask you about over the counter medications. If they do not, that is a big mistake on there part because many individuals come to the ER every year because they took too much Tylenol or Advil.
Many patients do not report all medications (especially OTC b/c they think OTC meds are not "real" drugs) to their doctors... for a variety of reasons. Doctors are not mind readers. If a patient does not reveal these meds, it would not be the fault of the ER or medical facility.
If a patient is unable to answer?
Many of my patients carry a list of ALL medications they take, prescription or OTC, as well as supplements. This is a good idea for anyone, in case they are incapacitated and can't answer questions about their conditions or meds.
If a person comes into the ER unconscious after an accident, I strongly doubt they will have their medical records handy. Their prescription AND non-prescription drug history is probably a mystery in an emergency situation unless they wear a medicalert bracelet.
Not an entire medical record, Vexy. Just a list of meds and allergies on a card in their wallet, which, BTW, emergency medical personnel will sometimes open in the presence of witnesses to obtain such a list, in addition to the patients' ID.
Wanting you to have a script, thats racist and sexist.
Your post is both ignorant and foolish.
peridot, i think he's just pointing out that since men don't need perscriptions to get spermicide or condemns then why do they make females go through more of an effort to do the same thing (prevent pregnancies). if you trly believe that each party should be equally responsbile ina pregnancy then they should each be treated equally with regards to preventing one as well.
but yeah he probably is foolish since i don't know where race comes into it at all.
Condemns.
GQTM.
Maybe not after the initial prescription. After the initial prescription, the purchase of BC pills should be handled at the pharmacy across the counter with a quick computer check.
i have to get a perscription to get my acid reflux meds every 3 months.
you do?? THere are TONS of acid reflux medicines that are over the counter and work just as well.
You live in Florida, right, Steve? Carpetbagger Governor Rick Scott's responsible for that law. He's enriching himself at our expense. We should recall him. He and his cronies own clinics, they're getting fat from patients visiting them unnecessarily.
Only if the buyer is 18 and signs a waiver stating that no law suit can be filed if things go wrong.
What if the buyer is 18 but is giving them to someone younger? Im no doctor but what would that do to a much younger child? Face it sex at 12 is not rare but is her body ready for Oral contraceptives?
Those "waivers" have proven to be nothing but toilet paper in the past if you get the right lawyer. (In other words, you may as well wipe your a$$ with it. That is what it is worth.)
bicfj,
You are one smart cookie! I would have never thought of that. Walmart has BC pills for $9.00. The secret is NOT going through your insurance company.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there anything that says you can't speak to your OB-GYN about the potential risks of birth control and then get the pill over the counter? In fact, I can't think of an OTC medication that doesn't say "Consult your physician." As for blood clots, far more women are at risk of dying during pregnancy or delivery and those risks would be greatly minimized if there was greater access to the pill.
Leslie Bartley---Blood clots can be caused by many, many factors. Unless you have evidence to show otherwise, I'd guess that deaths from blood clots from using the pill is very, very low on that list.
Estrogen increases the risk for blood clots. It is very well documented that birth control containing estrogen increases the risk. It is included on the packet information and the doctor/pharmacist should have counseled the patient on this topic. However this risk is greatest in smokers and women greater than 35 years. Leslie is still very wrong in stating that blood clots are the 3rd leading cause of death (it is a fairly common occurrence and unless the clot reaches the brain the risk of death is low).
There a lot of scaremongers around and Leslie sounds just like another one of them. They seem to have facts but no-one is able to find them.
It's rare. It happens more frequently to women who smoke, but it's still a rare occurrence.
Leslie, if you've known three women who died from blood clots, it's a cluster. That's all. They were likely genetically predisposed, had high chloresteral, smoked, had high blood pressure or had other risks. Being dehydrated can be a risk factor for blood clots. Without specific information it's impossible to determine the reasons for their deaths. They could have been drug users.
Cancer is the 3rd leading cause of death among women. Any woman who would die from a blood clot would have died from a clot arising from an unintended pregnancy. The same hormones would have caused the same outcome: death by blood clot.
Leading causes of death: women 2008 (most current information available from CDC)
As you can see, Stroke is #3, not blood clots per se. A stroke is a blood clot in the brain. A blood clot can be a PEA, an embolism, a clot in the leg...these can kill you but they're not a stroke. BCPs are known for causing PEAs as well as clots in extremities. These can dislodge and travel to the heart, lungs or brain with fatal outcome.
My brother's goddaughter died last spring of a PEA. She was only 18. It was a tragedy. She had such a bright future. It happened on her prom night. Drunken teenagers struck her car and broke her leg in three places. So very sad.
The CDC link is below for verification.
http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2008/index.htm
if it didn't need a prescription then it wouldn't have been an issue for the politicians to argue as part of their healthcare plans.....
Aspirin can cause these effects some of which may be fatal: Gastrointestinal bleeding, Reyes Syndrom, Neurological effects, renal failure and hepatitus. That doesn't mean it should require a prescription.
Also more women die of pregnancy than blood clots. Should becoming pregnant require a doctor's approval first?
Yay ulcers!
...I take generic Tylenol now.
As far as aspirin goes, a pharmacist told me that if aspirin were discovered in our modern society of today, it would be a prescription item.
boom!,
Acetaminophen... better be careful and keep an eye your liver.
Most adults can read the instructions on the label for a simple drug like antibiotics, yet drug resistant bacteria is rendering many antibiotics useless because people fail to follow the instructions they read. If there is a clotting problem caused by birth control medication, it most likely is not a simple thing, but very possibly a life threatening situation by the time the woman knows there is a problem. If you're doctor knows you, he will refill most basic prescriptions over the phone with no charge and just ask what he needs to know during your next regular office visit. I don't see the hassle, but I do see insurance companies jumping on the cost shift from prescribed medication to OTC. I've already had to deal with it with my acid reflux med.
Yes, please make this happen! I have been to the doctor many times for a birth control prescription, and can't remember them doing anything more than rattling off a list of potential risks--I can get that much information from reading the pamphlet of information that accompanies the pill. It's frustrating to have to pay for a doctor's visit just to get him/her to write out a prescription for something I've taken for years without incident.
However, I do think it would be important to place age restrictions (similar to alcohol/cigarettes/tobacco) on who can purchase them OTC. While I'm perfectly capable of reading the literature, I'm not sure a 13-year old would be equipped to do so, and I'd hate to see young girls taking it without the proper oversight, guidance, or parental knowledge. For one thing, they need to understand the pill's limitations, the fact that you must take them regularly and consistently or they're not effective, etc.
Would a 12 or 13 year old body be ready for Oral Contraceptives? With no record etc. One could buy them for her little sister?
Jeneepoo - Wow I see after reading the other posts, you picked up a little sense since your last post. Guess that education was well used.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I tried to post once, but had to sign up for an account, and then posted again because I didn't think my first attempt posted. So, if you're trying to insult me, sorry, but you failed. As for your comment to my other post, I actually do read all of the documentation that accompanies a new prescription. In that regard, yes, my education is well-used. I guess all of those years of college and post-grad helped me to hone my reading speed and comprehension.
One thing it didn't teach me (thankfully) is to be rude and disrespectful to someone I've never met.
Same argument could be made for buying alcohol or cigarettes for minors. Oh wait...
boom reason, Your right, that was kind of the point I was trying to make. Compare it to a 12 year old lets say if they want a joint?
:-)
You mean Obama and Sandra Fluke have not already decided this for women. Shame on those two for discriminating against women and what is really important to us.
Shame on you for failing to listen to Sandra Fluke's speech, or failing to comprehend it, Barb. Never presume to speak for me.
Blood clots are one documented side-effect, however I believe there are quite a few more side-effects that go widely unreported. Women who take an oral contraceptive tend to; gain weight, lose their libido, and become irritable... which ultimately contribute to marrital stress and are significant factors that lead to divorce.
Stop and think about the proliferation of oral contraceptive use in the U.S. and our divorce rate. I would bet that compared side-by-side, both would show correlation along an exponentially increasing graph.
The FDA is beholden to the pharmaceutical industry, The Pill is a billion $ industry, and the real, sad "story" doesn't get told. Women of America. Do yourselves a favor. Do our society a favor. Just say no. And making these drugs available without professional oversight would be a huge mistake.
Troy, I've been on birth control for seven years. No gained weight, no loss of libido, and no increased irritability. And, gasp, my boyfriend and I have been together the whole time! The BC didn't break us up!
In fact, it has done nothing but make my life better. It even cleared my skin perfectly when I first started it. Birth control is different for each person, so please don't say that all women need to do society a favor and say no.
Definitely worth the $30/mo I pay for it.
Troy, you know what also could lead to marital stress and divorce, an unwanted pregnancy, in which the woman gains weight, can lose her libido and becomes irritable. Not to mention the possibility for the added financial stress of a baby. Sorry, you're argument that the pill is a cause for divorce is ridiculous.
Troy, your post wins for most Insane Troll Logic Post of the Day.
Here's your rubber chicken prize, enjoy!
Women of America are NOT just going to say no. We like sex, want to have sex and just need the protection to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
will obama pay for this ? oh sorry i meant the working tax payers pay for them ?
You never fail to amaze me. You go A to Z on Obama. This is a discussion on the pros and cons of birth control for women. Stop! No need to bring Obama into the discusson.
Exactly! We don't need to bring Obama into every discussion.
Romney would agree.
Looks like the consumer buying them off the shelf would pay for them. Who pays for condoms? What does this have to do with Obama?
What this article doesn't address at all is that birth controls pills still need to be prescribed based on height, weight, and other risk factors. There is no general pill that will work for every woman. A physician is needed to determine the correct dosage and the general public is not educated enough in the chemistry behind pharmaceuticals to do this on their own.
This is because only the doctor offices have scales and that is really complicated stuff.
I sure as dirt can't afford 'em weighing contraptions!
Pretty sure dere illegal where's I come from.
If or when birth control pills are made available as an over-the-counter drug, a woman could still talk with her doctor or another caregiver before she bought them. As the article points out, there are risks associated with them. Insurance companies probably would not pay for them should they be available over-the-counter. My insurance company does not pay for my Tylenol, why would they pay for any other OTC item UNLESS a doctor prescribes them? Perhaps even then they wouldn't because "It's available without a prescription."