zyzzle

In a strict sense, you're of course correct, and I can't argue with your logic. We do indeed want new drugs to be made and for research to continue. However, need I only say "Sachler family" and "opioids" as one example where there was a definite evil collusion between the drug companies, doctors, and (addicted) patients? There have been countless other examples of egregious and over-the-top greed by pharmaceutical companies as well. Yes, I know you're in the industry, and this is not to denigrate either you or the hard work that you -- and many, many others do. However, when I see things like a "new" preparation and indication of pilocarpine costing $80 for a month's supply, I get truly miffed and upset at the patently obvious cash-grab.

These companies are NOT hurting. They can afford to sell drugs at 1/10th the cost of the "full-retail" US customer price. I gave some examples above. I can go mail-order to Mexico, Canada, India, Thailand, etc and get prescription drugs for 1/5th to 1/10th the US price. Sure, you argue, some of these places are scams, and I acknowlege this. However, for things like insulin, diazepam, permethrin, statins, ACE-inhibitors, etc, there are many which are completely vouched for. Yes, I'd rather pay $50 for a year's aggregate supply of statin vs. $600 for a prescription filled in the USA. The companies themselves "subsidize" their so-called cheap international market by intentionally making prices for US-sourced product sky-high. If there are ways, around this issue, I'm going to take them, legality or morality be damned...

That's the "evil". It's so-called rampant, out of control capitalism which makes many drugs only affordable to the extremely wealthy. Drugs should be affordable for all. I'm no bleeding-heart, trust me, but this is an issue I feel strongly about. When you've got a *ten*-factor cost disparity between the same drugs being sold in the USA vs the rest of the world, there's a problem, Virginia! And, Nick above makes the point eloquently and succinctly...

Eric F

I started a thread about this. I just got my first pair of bifocals and still need to buy a pair of distance glasses.

eXcentris

I use progressives, I'm fine with the reading part, it's the distance part I'd want to get rid of, especially when I play sports (I can't wear contacts). That said, I did temporarily "solve" the distance problem with... cataracts! Much to my surprise, I realized last year that I could see the tv and read subtitles better without my glasses than with them, which prompted a wtf??? My ophtalmologist laughed when I told him and said it's because of cataracts. Of course that benefit will go away next year when I'm supposed to have the cataracts removed, and at the same time, have a small tube inserted to keep some canal open to treat glaucoma (reduce eye pressure). So at the moment, I have bifocals which cataracts have rendered useless, except for reading.

I already take three different types of drops for glaucoma, I ain't taking more unless they not only cure short sightedness but also allow me to shoot lasers out of my eyes.

GatorDeb

For those with bifocals, have you tried progressives?

Eric F

Insurance wouldn't cover it.

eXcentris

I edited my post, I use progressives, not bifocals. Doh! That said, I have no insurance.

tanman

Oh I totally agree with you 100%. You might be surprised but most pharmacists hate new drugs. (To make a gross generalization) They're untested (relative to the data available on older medications), super expensive, and it just makes our job just a little more complicated. Plus we've been there before and have heard all the promises that new drugs bring. A lot of times they end up unfulfilled. There are some we get excited about like new antibiotics to fight resistant bacteria, or new drugs with proven mortality benefit. But oftentimes the new drugs that come out are a lot like this one. Plus we don't get paid for what we recommend (unless you work for the industry) so it's not like we get paid for suggesting expensive drugs. We love saving money. Generics and $4 drug lists are our friend. I wasn't really defending the drug companies (well I guess I was a little). My intent was to explain the process. Also I hate when people just generically say "The pharmaceutical companies only care about making a profit." It's just a pedantic argument that doesn't change anything. It's much more useful to attack certain things that they do that's bad like insulin prices as you already brought up.

I just had an appointment with my optometrist (because I'm such a procrastinator) and asked what her opinion was on this drug. She doesn't see the benefit and thinks it's pretty ridiculous as well. She said she has quite a few patient's that can't tolerate pilocarpine or have side effects from using it and that's for something important like glaucoma. So she can't really see recommending this drug to her patients.

tanman

This is a pretty good video explaining how these eye drops work.

Nick Danger

So all it does is contract your pupils. You're running around with your iris set at f22.

Anyone who did photography using a camera with manual settings knows that a smaller aperture creates greater depth of field, but it greatly reduces the amount of light. It will be hard to see at twilight or in a dim room.

Decker

If you do the drops in the morning that wouldn't be an issue.

Maxflier

Has anyone tried red light therapy for their declining eyesight?
My close up sight has fallen off a cliff this past year. I have an appointment in March to get my eyes checked (not sure why the wait times are so incredibly long for a damn vision check), but was curious if anyone had tried it.