>The purpose of these laws is to protect patients

Its not the patients that lobbies for these laws...it is the insurers, and its to lower their costs.

Its also why the insurers pay the pharmacists a bonus for these changes, if it was about costs to the patient, the bonuses (money back) would go to the patient.

>And there's nothing wrong with switching from brand name to generic, and most patients don't need to see their doctor every 30 days, and if they do, they can still make an appointment.

For patients with chronic conditions if the doctor determines the patient should be seen to evaluate their condition in 30 days before a new script is written, insurers having pharmacists effect a change to 90, is a direct interference with the doctor's practice of medicine. The doctor should make the determination, because they have the relationship with the patient, they know if they are at risk or likely to adhere to the therapies better than an insurer making broad brush strokes based on the cost to insurers. You also skip over the part where doctors get dropped from the insurers network when they don't accept the insurers "recommendations."

>The length of the drug prescription does not control the appointment - and anyway you can just call and they'll extend the prescription on the phone.

Sure, but that is not how it works in practice, the patients won't set up another appointment until they need another script, which is cheaper for the insurer and worse for the patient outcomes. Nevermind the Doctor being in the best position to determine which patients should be seen every 30 or 90 days, the shorter duration and 30 day appointments lead to higher percentages of drug adherence...which is a major issue in the US leading to about 1 million hospitalizations per year.