> Though generic antibiotics are often very affordable, or even free, at pharmacies, the cost of visiting a doctor to get a proper prescription can be prohibitive for some people, particularly people who don't have health insurance. Studies have shown it's common for people to keep old prescriptions of antibiotics to use in the future without a diagnosis, or even take their pets' antibiotics.

In England a lot of these people would get free healthcare, but wouldn't get antibiotics because of stuff like antibiotic guardianship - a public health measure to make sure people only get antibiotics when it's medically needed.

http://antibioticguardian.com/

Do US doctors just prescribe antibiotics willy nilly? If you can afford the doctor you'll get the 'script?

Not all doctors but it is common practice at Urgent Care centers. I've never gone to an UC and not gotten antibiotics and a steroid prescribed (or attempted). This combination will definitely help you to feel a little better by the next morning but they are over done. I also never fill the steroid as then I can never sleep.

Anecdotally, yes – most doctor's visits seem to end in steroid or antibiotic prescriptions. I've known of some doctors that prescribe antibiotics for things like colds just to give the patient a placebo.

The doctor that I often end up seeing refused to let me leave once without a handful of steroid samples: he took my insistence to not be prescribed them for a form of walking pneumonia we both agreed would go away on its own in a couple days and for which nothing could really be done as some kind of indication that I couldn't afford them, so he scavenged random remnants of samples he had around... and also gave me a "just in case" prescription for that antibiotic I didn't need or want. This is even after we had specifically done a test in the office that both he and I knew meant I had a specific mycobacterial issue that this antibiotic couldn't be effective against... I just don't get it :/.

No they don't. But people desire them even when they're not necessary. Which is why they resort to taking "animal" (actually human with animal branding) antibiotics.

Vice's "sources" consisted of tweets of Amazon reviews with not a single patient actually verified or even interviewed?

Weird. On the subject of antibiotics, here in China it used to be that you could buy anything. I've even seen military-grade mass produced physical rolls of jungle antibiotics on sale near the Burmese border. Things are a lot more controlled these days. It used to be that you could buy anything over the counter, now in most places you need a prescription. Prices are dirt cheap, though. It's rare to find a course of antibiotics for more than USD$3-4. Also, China seems progressive on new types of antibiotics, whereas the US FDA drags its feet approving things (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxithromycin for example).

Why is that an anti-biotic meant for fish is cheaper than the one meant for human if they are "nearly" replaceable ?

They're not cheaper. They're identical. Antibiotics for humans are cheaper because they are more commonly distributed. Amoxicillin is $9.

You need a prescription due to government regulations. The FDA wants to prevent antibiotic resistance from developing in humans.

From the article:

> Though generic antibiotics are often very affordable, or even free, at pharmacies, the cost of visiting a doctor to get a proper prescription can be prohibitive for some people, particularly people who don't have health insurance

- traceability requirements

- price discrimination

- prescription process (consultations)

- liability

- price opacity (the weird non-market of products paid for by health insurance)

Probably because since they're not meant for humans, there are less stringent quality requirements.

Fish antibiotics are human antibiotics.