Overview of Government Funding for Viagra

Yes, the U.S. government does fund Viagra, a medication widely recognized for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. The funding extends to various departments and programs, emphasizing the government's commitment to addressing this health concern.

The Role of the U.S.

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense (DoD) has played a significant part in funding Viagra. The DoD began covering the cost of Viagra prescriptions in 2012, and by 2014, they spent $41.6 million on this medication alone. This funding includes other erectile dysfunction drugs, with a total expenditure reaching $84.24 million in the same year.

Defense Health Agency's Expenditure on Viagra and Other Erectile Dysfunction Drugs

The Defense Health Agency, an extension of the DoD, has also had a significant financial commitment towards Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs. According to the agency's data, in 2014, there were 1.18 million prescriptions filled, of which 905,083 were for Viagra, costing $41.6 million.

Total Expenditure on Erectile Dysfunction Medication for Military Personnel and Their Families

Does the government fund Viagra and how much do they spend?The U.S. government's financial support for erectile dysfunction treatments extends beyond active military personnel to include retired members and eligible family members. The total expenditure on such medication has been substantial, with the bill for drugs like Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra amounting to millions annually.

Role of Medicaid in Funding Viagra

Medicaid, the government's health plan for economically disadvantaged people, also covers the cost of Viagra. This subsidy is funded by taxpayers, a policy decision made by Congress in 2003 when they established the Medicare prescription drug program.

Case Study: New York State's Expenditure on Viagra

An illustration of the impact of government funding for Viagra can be seen in New York State's expenditure. In one year alone, New York spent $6 million on purchasing Viagra. This expenditure is covered by Medicaid, emphasizing the significant role of government funding in providing access to this medication.

The Reasons for Government's Support of Viagra for the Military

The reasons for the government's financial support of Viagra for the military are multifaceted. One argument is that Viagra is a medical drug that treats a medical condition, hence justifying the subsidy. However, the underlying reasons could extend to the unique challenges that military personnel face, such as the stress of war, which can negatively impact a man's sex life.

The Perspective of the Military Times on the Issue

The Military Times, a news platform that covers defense matters, suggests that the DoD's expenditure on erectile dysfunction medication is significant. However, they also note that the military pays for women's birth control, indicating a broader commitment to sexual health and family planning.

Comparison: Government Funding for Birth Control and Viagra

Despite the significant spending on Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications, the government also covers birth control for women. This indicates a balance in funding for both men's and women's sexual health needs. It's essential to note that while some view contraceptives as “lifestyle drugs,” many women take them for medical purposes, such as preventing uterine bleeding.

Public Debate: The Essentiality of Funding Erectile Dysfunction Medication vs Family Planning Methods

The issue of government funding for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medication versus family planning methods has generated public debate. While some argue that access to family planning is essential, others contend that erectile dysfunction medication is not medically necessary. Despite these differing views, the government's current stance underscores their commitment to comprehensive sexual health coverage.

Journals

  • Most viewed
  • Most cited
Special Features

Audio

Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine 
Inaugural Editorial
Christopher L. Brooks (Editor in-Chief) 
Read More