Third Question of the Day May 16, 2014 If a consumer learns that a commerically available drug was available and could have been used as treatment and cost a lot less, but a doctor insisted that a compounding preparation be used what recourse does the consumer have? What should he or she do? Actual scenrio from reader--

Patient goes into doctor.  Doctor insist on multiple hormone level test and then tells patient her hormone levels are low.  Patient ask about options. Doctor says there is only one option and that is to have the hormone compounded and states that a certain pharmacy does all compounding for the doctor.  When patient goes to pick up prescription, learns insurance will not pay for the compound, and no instructions on how to use are given to the patient.  The labels for the compounded preparations are handed to the patient separate from the preparations. When patient goes to complain to the state board of pharmacy, she learns that the owner of the pharmacy is a member of the state board?   Have others had similar experiences?  Different experiences?  How many patients go in and request a compounded preparation?  Is it appropriate for the pharmacy to suggest the test be done  and then refer the customer to a particular doctor who they know prescribes a lot of compounded preparations?  What about if they refer customer to a doctor who they know will refer the customer back to the pharmacy to have the compounds prepared?  Is this illegal?  Inappropriate? Unethical?  Perfectly okay?  Does it matter if the doctor or pharmacist basis his or her decision to prescribe compounded preparation on what insurance the consumer has? 

How many readers have received a drug from their veterinarian that they did not know if it was compounded or not?  How many readers have received a drug from their veterinarian that had no label? No instructions?