
HFA Inhaler: No CFCs here
How far are we willing to go in the name of leading eco-friendly lives? Growing environmental pressures have forced us to evaluate our daily effect on the environment and make significant changes in our handling of carbon emissions, garbage management, recycling, use of non-biodegradable materials, deforestation, etc. However, the recent sprint towards a green utopia should not conflict with the resulting effects on health care accessibility.
An article published on the University of Michigan Health System website reports on a letter written by Dr. Harvey L. Leo on this year’s shift from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) albuterol metered dose inhalers to hydroflouroalkane (HFA) inhalers, which presents a catch-22 for asthmatics and society alike. On the one hand, these new inhalers offer a greener approach to asthmatic medication, thus decreasing the environmental footprint per 6.5 million asthmatics in the US. Specifically, the transition from CFC to HFA comes as a direct result of the negative effects of CFC on our ozone layer. Unlike most other aerosols inhalers continue to utilize CFCs, which are known to cause depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer. However, this transition will cost families 200-300 percent more out of pocket and our struggling health care system 2 to 3 fold more than the CFC inhalers. The specific price difference between CFCs and HFAs based inhalers stands at $5-$25 vs. $30-$60 respectively.
And for the 6.5 million American children with asthma, newly mandated environmentally friendly inhalers will come at a greater cost to low- and middle-income families most will see a significant increase in their prescription co-payments or out-of-pocket costs, especially since a generic version of the medication will not be available. [Source]
The price difference between the inhalers does not result particularly from manufacturing cost, but rather from a patent. The process necessary to make the HFA inhalers is patented, which eliminates the possibility of generic inhalers and drives up cost. Though the patent expires in 2010, it seems a bit ludicrous that asthmatics must pay significantly higher prices for their essential treatments, just because of a monopoly on the production of these inhalers. Consequently, with nearly 650.000 US asthmatic children uninsured, Dr. Leo suggests that many will resort to halting use of the inhalers or cutting back, thus providing ineffective treatment for their asthma.
As not only a lifelong asthmatic, but also one from a low-income background, I can attest to the life-saving relief provided by those little canisters. In times when inhalers were unavailable, home remedies only provided minimal relief. Had my asthma been worse and the accessibility of inhalers less, my fight with asthma would have certainly been more lopsided. However, thanks to the low cost of CFC inhalers my asthma was kept under control. Though I certainly support efforts to make medicine more eco-friendly, it should not be at the cost of the health of others.
Ultimately, in response to observations such as those of Dr. Leo, it is necessary to question whether going green, in this case, is truly more important than the health of future generations. The green revolution will certainly fail if we triumph in preserving our planet, but fail at conserving the future generations that are supposed to enjoy it.
Sources
