I'm reading the poll as "should the law be passed to have prescriptions filled at drug stores". Aren't they already? Perhaps it is too early, and I may have read it wrong. If the Question was "should the law be passed to allow prescriptions filled by mail order?" then the answer would probably be a resounding "yes".
I didn't get it at first either. If you read the article Howard linked to, you'll see there is pending legislation prohibiting insurers from requiring people to mail-order prescriptions. I am always for freedom of choice, so I'll vote Yes.
Most part D of Medicare ( Private Plans) equivalents forgive one month's copay for every 90 day prescription ordered through the mail. I don't think local drug stores would offer this option.
With private insurance like mine, there is growing pressure on people to use the preferred mail order pharmacy. The service is terrible, its no real choice from my point of view.
I have always used the mail order option both with my old company and now with Medicare part D. You can oder online via their website, they offer 800 phone service or mail in service. Never had a problem, they need valid prescription orders initally mailed in of course.
Tp, then you have a good one. Hold times of around 20 minutes and a week to get your prescriptions is what I have experienced. Last week I was sent a letter telling me that I needed to call the company and explain why I wanted to use a pharmacy to fill my prescriptions or they were not going to cover me. I was on the phone for 30 minutes being transferred around while people read telemarketing scripts telling me the benefits and great service they offered.
I would want the option, so voted yes. A pharmacist you know might catch some drug interactions that the mail order people would not, while other people want the convenience of mail order.
Just to be clear, nobody is saying that if you want to use mail order, you shouldn't be able to.
The issue is insurance companies forcing people to use mail order.
For example, I would never use mail order if I didn't have to. I want to support a local business like Alberty and enjoy the benefits of a relationship with a local pharmacist that goes with it.
The cynic in me is whispering that a lobby group is involved and the consumers aren't really what's being protected here. I'd like to hear or read something outlining both sides of the issue.
The demise of the local, family-owned pharmacy (as with virtually every other family-owned retail business) is attributable to chain-stores. Now the chain-stores (Rite-Aid, Walgreens, Eckerd, etc.) are feeling the pinch from online pharmacies. Most likely the chain-pharmacies are behind the proposed legislation. Heaven knows- Albany wouldn't be acting unless some corporate interest was at stake.
All of those "No" votes and only one reason as to why; bad service (but we've had a good service response to counterbalance that). I'm surprised we haven't heard from more. I'm genuinely curious as to why there are so many no's and the reasons for them. Are they from people who HAVE to use mail order?
Kim, I vote Yes because of the service I get from my particular mail order service. I know there are good mail order services out there but, a consumer should have a choice and right now insurance companies are looking to take away the choice of going to a local pharmacy.
I suspect a lot of the NO votes are from people who do not believe the government should be involved.
If we had a better system for choosing our health insurance, then I would be a No vote. But inside the crappy system we now have, yes is the best choice. Is it a conundrum or a Catch-22? I don't know. It certainly goes back to the "Collapse of Complex Societies" theory
I used to order through the mail for the cost savings, but take a look at the recommended temperatures for your medications to be kept at. I don't know about anyone else, but my medications were never packed specially with regard to temperatures that are too hot or too cold for any medication. The company I was required to use was also based in Florida and used only regular mail. No signature, no delivery to the door, just left in my mailbox. This was true in every season. Some of my medications are very strong (not narcotic) but dangerous if taken improperly.
I finally decided I no longer wanted to take chances with the efficacy of my medications, or with delays. I far prefer dealing personally with my pharmacist, he always has a smile and a kind word for me. And he actually knows who I am without me telling him.
Just goes to show I can never
Just goes to show I can never predict the outcome of a poll ... figured this would be a slam dunk "yes" poll.
I'm reading the poll as
I'm reading the poll as "should the law be passed to have prescriptions filled at drug stores". Aren't they already? Perhaps it is too early, and I may have read it wrong. If the Question was "should the law be passed to allow prescriptions filled by mail order?" then the answer would probably be a resounding "yes".
I didn't get it at first
I didn't get it at first either. If you read the article Howard linked to, you'll see there is pending legislation prohibiting insurers from requiring people to mail-order prescriptions. I am always for freedom of choice, so I'll vote Yes.
Most part D of Medicare (
Most part D of Medicare ( Private Plans) equivalents forgive one month's copay for every 90 day prescription ordered through the mail. I don't think local drug stores would offer this option.
With private insurance like
With private insurance like mine, there is growing pressure on people to use the preferred mail order pharmacy. The service is terrible, its no real choice from my point of view.
I have always used the mail
I have always used the mail order option both with my old company and now with Medicare part D. You can oder online via their website, they offer 800 phone service or mail in service. Never had a problem, they need valid prescription orders initally mailed in of course.
Tp, then you have a good one.
Tp, then you have a good one. Hold times of around 20 minutes and a week to get your prescriptions is what I have experienced. Last week I was sent a letter telling me that I needed to call the company and explain why I wanted to use a pharmacy to fill my prescriptions or they were not going to cover me. I was on the phone for 30 minutes being transferred around while people read telemarketing scripts telling me the benefits and great service they offered.
I would want the option, so
I would want the option, so voted yes. A pharmacist you know might catch some drug interactions that the mail order people would not, while other people want the convenience of mail order.
Just to be clear, nobody is
Just to be clear, nobody is saying that if you want to use mail order, you shouldn't be able to.
The issue is insurance companies forcing people to use mail order.
For example, I would never use mail order if I didn't have to. I want to support a local business like Alberty and enjoy the benefits of a relationship with a local pharmacist that goes with it.
The cynic in me is whispering
The cynic in me is whispering that a lobby group is involved and the consumers aren't really what's being protected here. I'd like to hear or read something outlining both sides of the issue.
The demise of the local,
The demise of the local, family-owned pharmacy (as with virtually every other family-owned retail business) is attributable to chain-stores. Now the chain-stores (Rite-Aid, Walgreens, Eckerd, etc.) are feeling the pinch from online pharmacies. Most likely the chain-pharmacies are behind the proposed legislation. Heaven knows- Albany wouldn't be acting unless some corporate interest was at stake.
All of those "No" votes and
All of those "No" votes and only one reason as to why; bad service (but we've had a good service response to counterbalance that). I'm surprised we haven't heard from more. I'm genuinely curious as to why there are so many no's and the reasons for them. Are they from people who HAVE to use mail order?
Kim, I vote Yes because of
Kim, I vote Yes because of the service I get from my particular mail order service. I know there are good mail order services out there but, a consumer should have a choice and right now insurance companies are looking to take away the choice of going to a local pharmacy.
I suspect a lot of the NO votes are from people who do not believe the government should be involved.
If we had a better system for
If we had a better system for choosing our health insurance, then I would be a No vote. But inside the crappy system we now have, yes is the best choice. Is it a conundrum or a Catch-22? I don't know. It certainly goes back to the "Collapse of Complex Societies" theory
People should retain the
People should retain the choice on prescriptions.
I used to order through the
I used to order through the mail for the cost savings, but take a look at the recommended temperatures for your medications to be kept at. I don't know about anyone else, but my medications were never packed specially with regard to temperatures that are too hot or too cold for any medication. The company I was required to use was also based in Florida and used only regular mail. No signature, no delivery to the door, just left in my mailbox. This was true in every season. Some of my medications are very strong (not narcotic) but dangerous if taken improperly.
I finally decided I no longer wanted to take chances with the efficacy of my medications, or with delays. I far prefer dealing personally with my pharmacist, he always has a smile and a kind word for me. And he actually knows who I am without me telling him.