Subject: Crixivan & Stadlanders
From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:26:12 -0400

Michael Shernoff, MSW
[email-masked] (e-mail)
http://members.aol.com/Therapysvc

14 October 1996

Here is a copy of a letter that I sent to both my US senators and to my
congressperson.  I urge every concerned individual to write a similar letter
of protest so that perhaps the Stadlanders monopoly of supplying Crixivan can
be ended.

U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato
370 7th Avenue
NYC, NY 

Dear Senator D'Amato:

I am writing you since you have been a vocal supporter of people with
HIV/AIDS in the U.S. Senate.  

Recently my physician prescribed Crixivan for me, one of the new class of
anti-HIV drugs known as Protease Inhibitors.  Merck manufacturers this drug
and it is only available through one mail order pharmacy, Stadlandlers.  Why
has the federal government allowed this monopoly for distribution of this
drug to continue?  This is not in the best interests of patients for several
reasons.  

Those of us with complicated medical conditions count on our local pharmacy
to keep track of our medications and to advise us about possible
contraindications.  Now we are forced to have another pharmacy dispense one
of our drugs.  My local pharmacy has agreed to take the 80% that my insurance
company pays as payment in full.  Stadlanders' public relations is that it is
very concerned with the welfare of people with HIV/and AIDS.  Yet they do not
accept the payment from the insurance companies as payment in full.  They
hold me financially responsible for the 20% co-payment, which at $160 a
month, comes to $1920 annually.

In addition the inability of local pharmacies to sell this drug means that
there is a resulting loss of tax revenues for cities and states where the
local pharmacies are located.  Also, recently I read that a Canadian company
has purchased a controlling share in Stadlanders.  This means that the
profits earned from dispensing this drug will not even go to an American
company.  

Originally Merck, said that other pharmacies would be able to obtain Crixivan
by mid October.  Now they are saying sometime in early 1997 at the earliest.
 Isn't this a fragrant violation of our free enterprise system?  Isn't it
setting up a dangerous precedent for other newly approved drugs?
Having discussed this with owners of various pharmacies around the country,
and with other individuals who are taking the drug, we are all completely
baffled why this egregious situation is allowed to continue.  

I am writing you in the hope that perhaps you can bring some of your
influence to bear on correcting this situation.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you are able to offer.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Michael Shernoff