Not-So-Free Medication Samples

A study finds that free drug samples induce physicians to prescribe brand-name medications over generic. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Everybody loves a freebie. Especially those “samples” you get at the doctor’s office, with the latest, greatest brand-name cures for your headache or your heartburn or whatever it is that ails ya. But a study published in the September issue of the Southern Medical Journal finds that those freebies may cost you in the long run. Because doctors who use those samples wind up prescribing the more costly brand-name medications more often than the cheaper generic.  

The researchers tracked the prescribing habits of one particular group of 70 physicians. What made this practice ideal is that at some point it moved from one space to another. In the new place, there was no room to store all those samples. So no more free-flowing freebies. What the researchers found is that when the physicians were no longer under the influence of the free samples, the number of prescriptions they gave their uninsured patients for generic drugs rose from 12 percent to 30 percent. That means that when the office was filled with brand-name samples, the docs tended to write more brand-name ‘scrips. Which their patients had to pay for. So, in the end, there’s no such thing as a free drug. Which, deep in your heartburn, I think you already knew.

—Karen Hopkin

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:

RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe