How this Philly doctor helps patients to save on the cost of medications | Expert Opinion 60%

By Jules Lipoff79%

7/19/2026, 10:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 40.5% saturation with 259 hits. Analysis detected 2,059 faulty-reasoning hits from 639 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.6% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,962 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.10% of the article peer group.

In medical school, I was taught to choose medications based on how well a medication works and its risk or side effects. 
Cost was rarely mentioned, as if safety and efficacy were the only factors in the equation. 
But to patients, cost is not negligible. 
Money spent on medications or healthcare will not be there for something else  whether putting food on the table, childcare, or other needs. 
In my dermatology clinic, I see cost as an important “side effect” to pay attention to, and often the biggest reason for patients not filling their prescriptions. 
Consider a couple examples of how the exact same hair loss treatment can cost more in one form compared to another: 
The most common and effective over-the-counter hair loss treatment is topical minoxidil, best known under the brand name Rogaine. 
Forms of topical minoxidil marketed for women can cost 40% more than the exact same medication labeled for men  my colleagues and I published a study to prove it. 
Another medication, finasteride, is commonly prescribed in 1-milligram tablets to treat hair loss in men, and in 5-mg tablets to treat enlarged prostates. 
According to GoodRx, 30 tablets of finasteride 1 mg cost about $30 for a one-month supply, and 30 tablets of finasteride 5 mg also cost $30. 
I’m always looking for ways to save my patients money. 
So like many other doctors, I have prescribed the finasteride 5-mg tablets and directed patients to cut them in fourths with a pill splitter. 
I often advise women to use the minoxidil marketed for men, because it’s cheaper for the same medicine. 
Why should women pay more for the same thing  a pink tax? 
Here are some tips to help you navigate a system rife with irrational and unfair pharmaceutical pricing: 
Co-pays can be based on the number of pills, or number of fills. 
Ask your doctor if you can save money by splitting pills (note: not all pills can be split), or by getting longer-term medications prescribed as a 90-day supply. 
Many pharmacies offer a $4 (or other discount) formulary price for a 30-day supply. 
For instance, without insurance or any other program, you can usually get common prescription steroid creams for $10 for a 90-day supply. 
A full month of terbinafine, the common medication for toenail fungus, also costs only $10 without insurance. 
Strangely, sometimes certain medications may cost more out of pocket with insurance  it never hurts to ask. 
Some over-the-counter prescriptions can be just as effective as more expensive prescription options. 
For acne, topical adapalene is similar to topical tretinoin, and an excellent option if you don’t have insurance. 
Discount programs may offer coupons, and some pharmacies may offer discounts, e.g., GoodRx discounts and Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs pharmacy. 
The pharmacies we use matter  for instance, if you use a telemedicine app like Hims or Keeps, it will likely cost you $90 every three months to get minoxidil or finasteride. 
My latest hot tip: In most states, Costco does not require membership to let anyone use their pharmacy, and instead of perhaps $360/year from Hims or Keeps or even regular pharmacies, for a full year supply of finasteride, it may only cost you $50-60. 
The same prescription can carry dramatically different costs, depending on the pharmacy, the formulation, or a discount program. 
Before deciding you can’t afford a medication, ask your doctor or pharmacist if they know of a less expensive way to get the same treatment. 
My tips can save you hundreds of dollars a year. 
<i>Jules Lipoff practices as a board-certified dermatologist and Pennsylvania medical director for The Dermatology Specialists and serves as a clinical associate professor (adjunct) in the Department of Dermatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine.</i> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.5%Jules Lipoff: 2.5%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Confirmation Bias7.5%This article: 18.6%Jules Lipoff: 8.5%Inquirer.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias18.6%This article: 17.7%Jules Lipoff: 7.9%Inquirer.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic17.7%This article: 2.8%Jules Lipoff: 0.9%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Jules Lipoff: 3.2%Inquirer.com: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias6.6%This article: 11.4%Jules Lipoff: 6.0%Inquirer.com: 5.0%Framing Effect11.4%This article: 13.1%Jules Lipoff: 4.4%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Loss Aversion13.1%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.8%Jules Lipoff: 6.3%Inquirer.com: 2.7%Optimism Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Jules Lipoff: 5.6%Inquirer.com: 5.7%Negativity Bias14.2%This article: 1.6%Jules Lipoff: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Jules Lipoff: 2.2%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Halo Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Jules Lipoff: 2.3%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 3.4%Jules Lipoff: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.7%Jules Lipoff: 11.0%Inquirer.com: 2.3%Appeal to Authority20.7%This article: 5.3%Jules Lipoff: 2.5%Inquirer.com: 1.1%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.5%Jules Lipoff: 8.9%Inquirer.com: 3.3%Hasty Generalization22.5%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.8%Jules Lipoff: 2.5%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Bandwagon3.8%This article: 12.5%Jules Lipoff: 8.0%Inquirer.com: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion12.5%This article: 2.7%Jules Lipoff: 0.9%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Begging the Question2.7%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.3%Jules Lipoff: 2.8%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Burden of Proof8.3%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.2%Jules Lipoff: 4.2%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Anecdotal4.2%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 40.5%Jules Lipoff: 13.5%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)40.5%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.8%Jules Lipoff: 1.3%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Special Pleading3.8%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.2%Jules Lipoff: 1.7%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 31.6%Jules Lipoff: 11.4%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice31.6%This article: 13.8%Jules Lipoff: 6.8%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Indoctrination13.8%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.6%Jules Lipoff: 9.9%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.6%

639 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.2%attributed speech580writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageGoodRx • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJules Lipoff • 33 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jules Lipoff

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words56% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jules Lipoff: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.8 ptsWriter: 34.8%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -21.6 ptsWriter: 21.6%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.2 ptsWriter: 15.2%Jules Lipoff: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.