Prescriptions for psychiatric problems on the rise

[PrettySquareGal]

Prescriptions for psychiatric problems in all adults have risen 22% since 2001; Usage has quadrupled among men aged between 20 and 64 over the last decade; More than one in four American women took at least one drug for conditions like anxiety and depression last year, according to an analysis of prescription data.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...medication-mental-disorder.html#ixzz1dzVOR5qn

Do you think this is a reflection of hard times or more people having a hard time with life regardless of the time in which we live? What do you think is the root cause?

 

[Feraud]

The pharmaceutical industry pushes doctors to prescribe more prescription medicine for real or imagined illness. It's a racket.

 

[Tomasso]

It's a racket.

Like none other.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Why do you think so many doctors are willing to sell out, so to speak, to Big Pharma?

 

[LizzieMaine]

The slogan of the pharmaceutical industry is "It's Dough -- Let's Go." They have to rush to get all they can before the patents run out, so they push as much as possible on as many people as possible for as long as they hold exclusivity on the product. God forbid people should take a cheap generic.

Not to say there aren't people who are helped by such things - there certainly are. But that makes the racket even more despicable -- the help lasts only so long as you can afford to pay for it.

As for the doctors, I'd be shocked, shocked to discover kickbacks going on under the table.

 

[scottyrocks]

And this is Golden Era related . . . how?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

And this is Golden Era related . . . how?

I see this as very relevant to noting that "progress" and our current culture is obviously not doing so great, whether it's bought doctors, crooked salesmen or an increasingly "nervous" population. I don't have the stats but I don't know if so many people used to take psychotropic meds.

Your question adds to the conversation...how?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I think a big shift is the presence of advertising for prescription meds. I see all kinds of ads for over-the-counter snake oil, salves and balms in my old magazines, but enticing people to ask their doctor about a specific pill with scary side effects is relatively new.

 

[scottyrocks]

It doesn't add to it. It questions it. We discuss the Golden Era - history, and sometimes comparisons are drawn to the contemporary. I didn't see that here. So I questioned it. If there's a way this relates to drugs in the Golden Era, which there weren't nearly as many of, or perhaps how people in the Golden Era coped with stress without the use of a drug, I'm all ears. But the main focus of this appears to be completely contemporary in nature. 'Do you think this is a reflection of hard times or more people having a hard time with life regardless of the time in which we live? What do you think is the root cause?' People have always had hard times. No we have crutches on top of crutches. And enablers.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals to consumers was considered unethical if not illegal until the early '80s, which gives you a pretty good idea of when things started to change. In the Era, such advertising was confined exclusively to medical journals, and you waited for your doctor to tell you you needed something rather than going in all fired up about an ad you saw and demanding a prescription for some new drug.

 

[sheeplady]

I think it's four things: we have better drugs and better awareness, times are tough, some healthcare professionals are pill pushers, and the whole insurance system is set up to give people who suffer from mental illness the short end of the stick.

To be quite frank, the focus and money is on treatment, not prevention, and to go further, only certain types of treatment. In the US, if you suffer from a psychological illness, it is far more likely that a script will be covered by your health insurance than therapy, even if therapy will be the better choice. Or that if you need a script and therapy, it is still highly unlikely you will have your therapy covered. I've even known some healthcare practioners to not even mention treatments that are not covered, because they know many patients will not be able to afford them, even if those non-covered treatments are the best option.

And to be extremely frank, I think that psychological or mental illness is singled out as being not as worthy of treatment by our medical establishment. If you break a hip, you'll get the pain meds, the dressings, the hospital stay, and the physical therapy you need covered by insurance. If you suffer from a mental illness, you'll get the drugs and hospital stay (maybe) covered. The only reason why this would be is that mental and psychological illness is still seen as being a personal failing, and not a disease.

How doctor's and hospitals can charge insurance and what is covered determines your treatment plan much more than your actual illness. (In the U.S.) The end result is that a lot of people are on drugs that aren't helping them because they are the only thing they can get access to.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

It doesn't add to it. It questions it. We discuss the Golden Era - history, and sometimes comparisons are drawn to the contemporary. I didn't see that here. So I questioned it. If there's a way this relates to drugs in the Golden Era, which there weren't nearly as many of, or perhaps how people in the Golden Era coped with stress without the use of a drug, I'm all ears. But the main focus of this appears to be completely contemporary in nature. 'Do you think this is a reflection of hard times or more people having a hard time with life regardless of the time in which we live? What do you think is the root cause?' People have always had hard times. No we have crutches on top of crutches. And enablers.

I'm sure you'll notice that many threads in the "Observation Bar" are full of discussions not specific to the Golden Era. Like "Should I own a dog." This one is relevant in my mind. Not sure why you chose this one to nit pick but I won't play.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals to consumers was considered unethical if not illegal until the early '80s, which gives you a pretty good idea of when things started to change. In the Era, such advertising was confined exclusively to medical journals, and you waited for your doctor to tell you you needed something rather than going in all fired up about an ad you saw and demanding a prescription for some new drug.

Right! It's become not just acceptable, but desirable to be on medication.

Also, insurance would once cover a visit to the "funny farm" which seemed like a retreat in the country for "nervous" executives. Now insurance will cover pills only, or one outpatient visit, in many cases.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... and you waited for your doctor to tell you you needed something ...

And your pharmacist could often give you just as good advice as your doctor. In fact, didn't pharmacists usually measure, grind, and mix the prescriptions themselves?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

And your pharmacist could often give you just as good advice as your doctor. In fact, didn't pharmacists usually measure, grind, and mix the prescriptions themselves?

And they were called "Chemists!"

 

[Feraud]

They have to rush to get all they can before the patents run out, so they push as much as possible on as many people as possible for as long as they hold exclusivity on the product. God forbid people should take a cheap generic.

Bingo.
My wife worked for a few years with one of the largest companies in the U.S. It was a real eye-opener.

Why do you think so many doctors are willing to sell out, so to speak, to Big Pharma?

If sales reps are pushing medicine that according to pharmaceutical dollar backed testing (insert ironic comment here) may help alleviate certain illness, why would a doctor question it. Most people don't question.

I think a big shift is the presence of advertising for prescription meds. I see all kinds of ads for over-the-counter snake oil, salves and balms in my old magazines, but enticing people to ask their doctor about a specific pill with scary side effects is relatively new.

Yes, ever-present and all encompassing advertising is a huge factor in the public consciousness and acceptance of taking a pill for every perceived illness by the
average joe.
People love to self-diagnose based on subjecive advertising.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

And they were called "Chemists!"

Yep. Nearly all of my great-grandfather's six brothers became chemists. It was a good profession in 1900s Iowa.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Interesting reading.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Interesting reading.

And by the way, this happens all over the world. A close friend of mine worked at the Chilean offices of the German pharmaceuticals giant, MERCK. The same racket went on in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, etc.

 

[Feraud]

To be quite frank, the focus and money is on treatment, not prevention, and to go further, only certain types of treatment.

An excellent point.