Having a doctor rubber stamp a prescription does more harm than good. If the argument is that getting a prescription is such a simple task it should cost almost nothing and be done instantly, then it likely doesn’t need to exist as a barrier at all.

"Having a doctor rubber stamp a prescription does more harm than good."

The question was how/why, not to simply restate it as fact wilit supporting data.

"If the argument is that getting a prescription is such a simple task it should cost almost nothing and be done instantly, then it likely doesn’t need to exist as a barrier at all."

That's not the argument. The argument is that the current system already meets the needs, so what real benefit does OTC provide? It's mostly a counterpoint to someone claiming that it's an overly complicated process. Even if it is cheap and fast, the benefit to an Rx is that someone reads the 6 or so questions off the Epic screen (or the user answers them on online) to ensure there are no interactions or elevated risks.

I'm not saying OTC is the wrong answer, but I'm not seeing any real arguments for real added net benefit from it.

Net benefit is the enormous hassle a woman has to go through to get an approved treatment.

Annual checkup, prescriptions only good for three months, and then typically only allowed to pickup one month dose at a time. That is a huge logistical burden being put on people. Maybe if a prescription was annual and included a year of pills, that would make the OTC case marginally less compelling. Given the status quo, OTC would be an improved quality of life for many.

Those are not restrictions under the Rx process. One can easily access hormonal Rx birthconrtol online - virtual appointment and mailorder pharmacy with auto renew. If people are unhappy with their service, there are other providers able to provide a convenient experience.

You can't get a year of pills at one time. These pills expire 1 year from the manufacture date.

You're talking about a theoretical "one" that can easily get birth control. In practice, this does act as a significant barrier for a large portion of the population. It's easy to forget this in an Amazon/Doordash/Instacart world, but online ordering doesn't work for everyone. For example, 4.5% of US households are unbanked.

That seems like a poor argument given that demographic is most likely to qualify for free or reduced cost healthcare either through Medicaid or ACA.

No, it's a great argument because it disproves your claim "One can easily access hormonal Rx birthconrtol online". It seems you have a new claim that this doesn't matter because they likely qualify for free or reduced healthcare. I don't find that very convincing. "Likely" isn't enough here and a doctor's appointment, even for free or reduced cost, is still a significant burden.

No, the point is that you can get birthcontrol online using Medicaid or insurance without needing a bank account.

'"Likely" isn't enough here'

Why wouldn't it be - just because you say so? Keep in mind the alternative is that they make too much to qualify, which gives them other options.

Keep in mind your definition of unbanked is only about checking and savings accounts. It has nothing covering credit cards or prepaid cards, which are also options. So saying people are unbanked and would likely be burdened isn't enough.