If You’re Wondering Who’s Paying for All That Ivermectin—You Are

Study finds insurers and taxpayers shelled out more than $130 million for a drug that doesn’t work.

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Doctors have known for more than a year now that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin isn’t effective against Covid. The FDA has explicitly warned against prescribing it to Covid patients, but many physicians still do—and public and private insurance companies are paying for it. A study published earlier this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that this drug has cost insurance companies more than a hundred million dollars. “People are really annoyed with insurance, that they don’t cover things that are evidence-based,” says lead author Kao-Ping Chua, an assistant professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health. “And at the same time, now here’s an example of insurance covering something that’s not evidence-based.”

Last August, Chua noticed an alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that noted a dramatic increase in ivermectin prescriptions during the pandemic. Before 2020, ivermectin prescription rates from US doctors were low—just a few thousand a week for parasitic diseases like scabies. Yet by the week ending August 13, 2021, as the Delta variant began to sweep the United States and ivermectin advocates proliferated, that number had skyrocketed to 88,000 prescriptions. Chua recalls, “I thought to myself, ” Chua recalls, “I really hope insurance is not paying for that.”

No such luck. Chua’s team looked at an insurance database of 5 million patients with private insurance and 1.2 million with Medicare Advantage from December 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021. They identified about 5600 ivermectin prescriptions and found that private insurers paid 61 percent of the claims and Medicare Advantage paid 74 percent—roughly $36 and $39 respectively. Multiplying those costs by weekly prescription figures from the CDC alert, the team found that insurers would have paid roughly $2.5 million in one week alone. Once multiplied out over the course of a year, the costs added up to nearly $130 million.

The private insurance expenditures are wasteful, says Chua, but the Medicare costs are even more troubling because they’re “effectively forcing all Americans to subsidize that spending” for a drug that doesn’t work. But that’s not all. Chua’s finding is actually an underestimate of taxpayer money going to ivermectin: The database that he used didn’t include Medicaid expenditures. “If you included the Medicaid plan spending, that $2.5 million dollars would be a lot higher,” says Chua.

The sky-high ivermectin spending alarms Nick Sawyer, an emergency room physician who runs the group No License for Disinformation, which advocates for state medical boards to revoke the licenses of doctors who spread disinformation and prescribe treatments that aren’t backed by evidence. When insurers cover dubious treatments, he says, they reinforce the false idea that the treatments are somehow effective. He sees insurers’ coverage of ivermectin as a “failure by the system to stop the institutionalization and legitimization” of the drug as a treatment for Covid.  

Chua’s findings are especially noteworthy when considering one of the main arguments of ivermectin proponents: The drug is cheap, often just a little more than a dollar a dose. Yet the study vividly illustrates that while individual costs can be low, on a population level, they add up fast. Sawyer notes that the costs of using an ineffective drug can be high in the long run. Indeed, poison-control centers reported receiving five times the number of calls about ivermectin in summer 2021 than they had before the pandemic.

What’s more, anti-vaccine activists often tout ivermectin as an alternative to vaccines—yet many Covid patients who have opted for ivermectin and other untested treatments instead of vaccines have required lengthy and expensive hospital stays. Neurologist and vaccine advocate Jonathan Howard wrote about that paradoxical dynamic in a recent article in Science-Based Medicine. He compared the $15-$20 a dose cost of mRNA vaccines, which prevent most hospitalizations, to that of an average Covid-19 hospital stay, which runs about $20,000. A significant part of that cost is treatments: Treatment with monoclonal antibodies typically costs more than $1,000, while the antiviral drug Remdesivir runs more than $3,000 for a course. Anti-vaccine activists often claim that vaccines are nothing more than cash cows for “big pharma”—yet their hospital stays turn out to be quite lucrative for those pharmaceutical companies.

Chua notes that while this study zeroes in on ivermectin, insurers and taxpayers are bankrolling other ineffective Covid treatments. Patients suffering from long Covid compound this problem: Because there is not yet one treatment that works for all patients, insurers often cover unapproved drug regimens such as the one I wrote about recently, which typically costs thousands of dollars a month. “A lot of this prescribing of medications is just because people are pretty desperate just to try anything,” says Chua. But “you’re doing that potentially at the cost of something that might actually work.”

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate