Ever wonder why economists spend a lot of time thinking about how people react to incentives? Well, this NYT article discusses how a response to a very serious problem could have used a bit more of that thought:
“We don’t want to discourage companies from providing low-cost medications to their consumers,” said Dr. Lauri Hicks, medical director for the C.D.C.’s “Get Smart Program,” which offers educational materials about appropriate antibiotic use. “If a patient believes that they can get an antibiotic quite easily or for free, then it may increase the pressure on health care providers to prescribe it.”
Overuse (unnecessary use) of antibiotics is a big problem due to the drug-resistant strains that result and cause greater harm so it is important to make sure antibiotics are used responsibly.
That said, I don’t understand why the crackdown here needs to be on pharmacies providing free/discount products. If it were a freely accessible good, you would want to raise the price in order to disincentives overuse. But in this case, access to the good is restricted by the need for a doctor’s prescription. And price aside, I hardly think talk of responsible antibiotic use is very effective once the prescription is being filled.
By ignoring the role of the doctor here, casting them as easily pressured into prescribing, they do a disservice. Doctors need to stand up to their patients because the doctors are the experts. Instead of putting a financial burden on those who have legitimate need for antibiotics (and may otherwise skimp and suffer greatly), it seems much easier to put the onus on doctors to prescribe antibiotics more responsibly.
