Lumigan As an Alternative to Latisse?

Unless you are buying it from outside the U.S. or your insurance is covering it (which they only will if you are using it for glaucoma), Lumigan is usually MORE expensive than Latisse because it comes in a 2.5 ml bottle while Latisse is in 3 ml bottle.  The price per bottle is very similar and sometimes more for Lumigan.

In order to get Lumigan, which is a drug for glaucoma, there will be some issues to address. First is that it's not approved for eyelash tretament by the FDA, second is that pharmacies and insurance companies will know that the script came from a non-ophthalmologist, and that the drug is liekly NOT being used for glaucoma treatment.
I doubt they will appreciate paying for their portion if insurance is used.
So I for one don't want all that hassle and will prescribe only Latisse for eyelash treatment.

Majority doctors would prescribe Lumigan for Latisse because it is not approved for lash indication.

I agree, as an ophthalmologist and cosmetic surgeon, Lumigan is meant for glaucoma patients.  Even though it is the same active ingredient (bimatoprost), unless there is a pre-existing condition of glaucoma, it is considered fraud to write it for non glaucomatous reasons.  The good news is that there is Latisse, meant for lash growth and appropriate to write for this indication.

I am not sure if there is an element of fraud when prescribing lumigan to grow lashes. For example Viagra is also used for pulmonary hypertension. When it is prescribed as that medicine (different name) the insurance covers it however the same insurance may not cover it if it is for erectile dysfunction. By using it for a different reason than prescribed, it would be considered insurance fraud. I am not sure if a provider would be ok to risk their license just to get you cheaper latisse.