Your recovery may depend on the pharmacist down the street



As a physical therapist, I have seen the same problem countless times. A patient makes steady progress for months, then suddenly plateaus. The exercises have not changed. The injury has not worsened. The patient is doing everything right, yet lingering pain or weakness will not budge.

After some investigation, we often find the cause: a medication problem. A prescription changed. A refill was delayed. A side effect went unrecognized. The patient’s body began responding differently, and the rehabilitation plan stalled.

Protecting pharmacy access is not a favor to one industry. It is part of protecting the patient’s path back to health.

Physical therapy, prescribing, and pharmacy cannot operate as separate worlds. Most patients who enter my clinic have at least one chronic condition, one prescription, or both. Medication can affect pain, balance, fatigue, inflammation, and healing. The pharmacist who understands a patient’s history and drug regimen belongs on the care team, not outside it.

Physical therapy can often reduce pain and restore movement without long-term reliance on medication. But after surgery or during a complicated recovery, pharmaceutical support may play an essential role. Patients do best when movement, hands-on care, and medication work together deliberately rather than through guesswork.

Recovery already asks a great deal of patients. A death in the family, an unexpected bill, or a difficult work schedule can disrupt appointments and home exercise. Those obstacles are hard, but patients can usually manage them with planning and support.

A collapsing pharmacy network is different. Patients cannot will a closed counter back into service, reach an unavailable pharmacist, or fill a prescription that remains trapped in a broken system.

Look at San Francisco, which now faces a “pharmacy crisis.” National chains have closed locations, while independent pharmacies struggle to survive. In Missouri, state officials are suing CVS and other pharmacy benefit managers over insulin pricing. Lawmakers may intend to lower costs, but poorly designed interventions can destabilize the same pharmacy networks patients depend on.

The ownership model is secondary. A national chain and a neighborhood independent may operate differently, but either can provide essential access. When either disappears, patients lose timely refills, answers about side effects, and help resolving dosing questions. In physical therapy, that can mean slower progress, cautious loading, missed sessions, and avoidable setbacks.

A short-staffed pharmacy creates similar problems. Patients struggle to reach prescribers and may wait days for guidance. Pharmacists often serve as the most accessible medication experts in the health care system, but accessibility requires someone behind the counter with enough time to listen.

When those questions go unanswered, therapists are left working around uncertainty. We may not know whether dizziness comes from the exercise program, the underlying condition, or a new medication. We may have to delay progress because safe rehabilitation does not permit guessing.

RELATED: Joy Behar’s TrumpRx rant shows how elites think

Gary Gershoff/Getty Images

I see the opposite when pharmacy access works. Sometimes a pharmacist’s clarification or a small medication adjustment helps a patient move past the last trace of a limp. Sometimes it allows a musician to use his fingers comfortably again. When the pharmacy side of the plan aligns with physical therapy, patients can recover faster without adding unnecessary costs or complications.

The care I provide is important, but recovery succeeds through cooperation. Physical therapists restore movement. Prescribers diagnose and choose treatments. Pharmacists catch interactions, explain side effects, and help patients use medications safely. Large chains and local independents both employ professionals who perform that work every day.

Pharmacists have become “integral to chronic disease management.” Policymakers should treat them that way. Any reform aimed at drug prices, corporate practices, or pharmacy benefit managers should begin with a basic test: Will patients retain reliable access to a pharmacist?

When the answer is no, the consequences reach far beyond the pharmacy counter. They appear in rehabilitation clinics, physician offices, emergency rooms, and patients’ homes.

Good rehabilitation depends on movement expertise and medication expertise working together. Protecting pharmacy access is not a favor to one industry. It is part of protecting the patient’s path back to health.

Big Pharma’s miracle drugs have a nasty side effect



My husband has bipolar disorder. I know firsthand that the medications he takes do not merely improve his quality of life — they make our family life possible.

I am thankful for the drug companies whose products and innovations help keep my family together. But that does not mean I trust Big Pharma.

The pharmaceutical industry’s incentives are often at odds with the people it treats.

The pharmaceutical industry has helped create a culture in which Americans are taking more prescription drugs than at any point in history. Last year, more than two-thirds of Americans reported taking a prescription drug daily, and 26% said they take four or more.

No wonder the average price of prescription medications in the United States has risen by about 37% in the last decade. Many of the most popular brand-name medications have doubled in price over the past 15 years.

One study found that prescription drug prices in the United States are nearly three times higher than prices for the same medications in 32 comparable countries. Family health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored plans jumped 26% from 2020 to 2025, outpacing wage growth and inflation.

A quarter of Americans recently reported having difficulty paying for their medications. About 19% said they had skipped or rationed doses because of the cost. Research indicates that medical expenses are now the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country, surpassing job loss.

I understand that high prices help fund the astronomical cost of clinical trials that test and bring new drugs to market. But Americans have also seen pharmaceutical companies acquire the rights to off-patent drugs and raise prices overnight. They have watched insulin prices climb for years even though insulin is relatively cheap to produce.

Let’s face it: The pharmaceutical industry’s incentives are often at odds with the people it treats.

The same industry that helps my husband is increasingly keeping medications out of reach for many families.

Drug prices would not be so high if Big Pharma did not spend between $13 billion and $14 billion a year on direct-to-consumer advertising. They would not be so high if the pharmaceutical and health sectors did not consistently spend more on federal lobbying than any other industry.

Those efforts shape the laws and policies that allow current drug prices. The industry clearly views them as worthwhile investments.

Americans spent 12.7% more on pharmaceutical drugs last year than they did in 2024. A significant share of that increase came from popular GLP-1 weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy. Roughly 12% of American adults are currently taking one of these drugs, and that number is expected to rise significantly in the coming years.

I am not saying people should not take these medications. That is not for me to say. But I am deeply concerned that, culturally, we increasingly treat medication as the first line of defense for nearly every challenge before seriously exploring other options.

RELATED: Want to live to 100? Don’t expect Big Pharma to help.

lucigerma/iStock/Getty Images

That concern comes from firsthand experience.

As someone who has battled addiction, I am acutely aware of the power substances can hold over a person’s life. That experience has left me worried about others who may develop dependencies on drugs.

I remember how the opioid crisis destroyed entire communities and caused a staggering number of deaths after companies such as Purdue Pharma aggressively pushed OxyContin while downplaying its risks. That epidemic continues today with synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Is it any wonder some of us remain skeptical of pharmaceutical companies’ motives?

As a parent, I do everything in my power to ensure that my children do not become unnecessarily dependent on medications. I want them to understand that any drug they take should be used carefully and for its intended purpose.

I acknowledge the value of medicine. I deeply respect what the health care industry can do. My own family depends on it.

But respect should not require blindness.

The pharmaceutical industry should remember the families paying the bills, rationing the doses, and wondering whether the medications they need will remain within reach.

Innovation deserves reward. Exploitation does not.

Fox News anchor embarrasses Biden campaign after they accuse him of spreading 'blatant lie'



Fox News anchor John Roberts is fighting back after the Biden campaign accused him of spreading a "blatant lie."

The Biden campaign loves to remind voters that President Joe Biden instituted a $35 price cap on insulin for Americans on Medicare. But this week, Roberts undercut the Biden campaign's message and reminded Fox News viewers that it was then-President Donald Trump who first instituted the $35 price cap in 2020.

'There are receipts to dispute the Biden campaign's claim about what I said.'

"Maybe I'm misremembering that, but I think it kind of already happened," Roberts said.

On Monday, the Biden campaign claimed that Roberts lied.

"This is a blatant lie. Trump did not cap insulin costs, President Biden did for seniors through the Inflation Reduction Act," the campaign said. "Trump’s Project 2025 wants to repeal it, which would raise insulin costs for over a million Americans."

— (@)

As it turns out, the Biden campaign — not Roberts — is guilty of spreading falsehoods.

On Tuesday, Roberts responded to the Biden campaign's accusation.

"There are receipts to dispute the Biden campaign's claim about what I said," Roberts pointed out.

First, Roberts cited a press release from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in May 2020 announcing the Trump policy. The press released explained the Trump policy would "provide Medicare beneficiaries access to a broad set of insulins at a maximum $35 copay for a month’s supply."

Second, Roberts cited Tracey Brown, the then-CEO of the American Diabetes Association, who attended a Rose Garden event announcing Trump's policy. Roberts played a clip of Brown thanking Trump for helping Americans who need insulin. Roberts, moreover, explained that he attended that Rose Garden ceremony.

Third, Roberts cited a Washington Post story that reported on Trump's policy.

The newspaper reported at the time:

The administration has brokered an agreement between insulin manufacturers and some Medicare prescription drug plans that would lower costs for some seniors beginning in 2021 by capping co-pays at $35 for a monthly supply — a figure that administration officials said would lead to roughly a two-thirds drop in out-of-pocket costs and would encourage seniors to continue taking insulin.

Finally, Roberts cited a report from the Rand Corporation, a left-leaning think tank, that praised Trump's program.

"We invited a representative from the Biden campaign to come on the program with us to discuss the issue, but thus far they have made no one available," Roberts concluded.

What Roberts did not include in his response is that another Trump order, Executive Order 13937, was designed to lower insulin costs. Biden later canceled it, then had essentially the same $35 insulin price cap developed by the Trump administration placed in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Biden Campaign Lies, Takes Credit For Trump Era Insulin Price Cap

Trump’s executive action was widely reported on, but the Biden administration reversed it before the cost-saving measures could take effect.

Price Controls Won’t Bring Down Health-Care Costs, But This Will

A consortium of hospitals recently announced plans to build a factory that can manufacture insulin within two years.

Biden Freezes Trump Rule Aimed At Lowering Insulin, EpiPen Prices

President Joe Biden froze a December rule signed by President Donald Trump aimed at lowering prescription drug prices for insulin.

Biden administration freezes Trump's directive to lower insulin prices



In his first days in office, President Joe Biden went on a blitz of reversing or halting policies implemented by former President Donald Trump. Included in the flurry of executive orders and directives, the Biden administration paused a measure that was designed to decrease the price of insulin.

Trump signed off on the "Access to Affordable Life-Saving Medications" rule on Dec. 23, 2020. The rule was to enable "improved access to these life-saving medications by low-income individuals who do not have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine due to either lack of insurance or high cost sharing requirements."

The rule was set to go into effect on Jan. 22, 2021, but it was shot down by the Biden administration. On Wednesday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the directive would be frozen for 60 days.

"The temporary delay in the effective date of this final rule is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the memorandum of January 20, 2021, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled 'Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,'" the HHS said.

White House chief of staff Ron Klain sent out a memo on Wednesday that directed agencies to freeze all of Trump's last-minute or "midnight regulations." The action to freeze Trump's last regulations will "give the incoming Administration an opportunity to review any regulations that the Trump Administration tried to finalize in its last days," according to the Biden administration.

The directive that orders certain health centers to pass discounts they get on insulin and epinephrine directly to their patients will be frozen until March 22.

As of 2020, "34.2 million Americans — just over 1 in 10 — have diabetes, and another 88 million American adults—approximately 1 in 3—have prediabetes," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"In 2016, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated that Medicare spent $42 billion more for beneficiaries over age 65 with type 2 diabetes than for those who do not have the disease," the CDC stated.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization focusing on national health issues, reported that the "average total Medicare Part D spending per user on insulin products increased by 358% between 2007 and 2016, from $862 to $3,949."

As far as insulin sales in the United States, there are the "big three" pharmaceutical giants: Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk.

A report from the offices of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, investigated the soaring insulin prices, and found a "broken" system to blame.

"This investigation makes clear that consumers are the only ones losing out in America's broken drug pricing system, since every part of the pharmaceutical supply chain benefits from higher list prices," Wyden said in a statement.

Novo Nordisk and Sanofi reportedly engaged in a "cat-and-mouse strategy of pricing," where the pharmaceutical companies would match or increase prices any time the competitor raised its prices.