A Cancer Drug Shows Promise, at a Price That Many Can't Pay

Chai Tea

Read that paragraph again.

0 Replies

Yes I did.

Regardless of how they are saying it, it's supply and demand.

If more people demanded this drug, the cost would come down.

What am I missing? I thought I read it carefully.

0 Replies

Chai Tea
That is not what is being said. I should point out that it is unusual for the price of the drug to be lowered prior to the pattern rights expiring. For instance Lipitor which has paid for it self many times over has not dropped in price. And will not until a generic drug comes into play.
History just does not support your statement.

0 Replies

I see what your saying now, and agree.

Lipitor isn't in the price range of this cancer drug though.

I'm still thinking the price of this one would have to come down, what with the 5 month expectancy and all.

Maybe this drug hasn't been on the market long enough to see where it's going. Time might tell.

0 Replies

I see entitlement as a word generally used by folks with the entitlement of adequate financial accounts, with relatively short personal experience with what I think of as the real world, which is a world where best intentions often don't work out, re jobs, careers, simply finding enough money to house, clothe, and feed a family. I know most who use the word 'entitlement' work or worked hard, and think everyone else should step up to the plate. I agree that stepping up to the plate is good, but not on the rather punitive views re those who fail to get to first base, much less third base.

On medical care, I suppose I am a radical. I was once a premed student, and have always understood the hippocratic oath as meaning equal attempts to heal the sick, whatever lines their pockets. Now that I am older, I can distinguish between needs for emergency appendectomies and botox treatment for facial wrinkles. Along that line there is probably a continuum, and it can be hard to figure what particular treatment doesn't make it into the equal treatment side.

I tend to think a life extending treatment falls into the equal side, even if it is only for a few months.

On the great expense of all this potential equal care - I'd rearrange the US national priorities. Sending feelers to the moon and to Mars and soldiers and bombs to far away nations on problematic contexts seem to have no bounds - yet many people I know are unable to come up with copays, and others can't get insurance (not all of them without ability to pay for it) and therefore are not accepted in certain medical practices as patients.

All the suffering going on seems to me to derive from a punishing hand of the entitled to those seeking "entitlements".

0 Replies

I agree with a lot of that. I think sending feelers (as opposed to manned missions) to outer space is different, though, because it is one of the best ways to fund pure science, which I think is worthy on a lot of levels. The obvious level is all of the incidental quality-of-life stuff that comes out of scientific exploration (including medical advances), but I also think that scientific exploration should be well-funded in and of itself, and space feelers are the glamorous angle, the "OK I'll fund that" angle.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Chai Tea
That is not what is being said. I should point out that it is unusual for the price of the drug to be lowered prior to the pattern (sic) rights expiring. For instance Lipitor which has paid for it self many times over has not dropped in price. And will not until a generic drug comes into play.
History just does not support your statement.

That is quite true. I had the same experience with Prilosec. My mom was Paying about $130- a month (30 pills) for the drug, before the PATENT rights expired. The drug company also found reasons to extend the patent for six months beyond when it was supposed to, but that is another story.

I now buy the drug for my mom OTC at Sam's Club. It costs around $27- for 42 pills. That is also where the government is sticking its nose where it does not belong. I have always found it curious that some drugs that were prescription only all of sudden become OTC when the patent runs out. I believe that that is an example of where the government is working hand and glove with the pharmaceutical companies, but that is yet another story.

Chai- I know what you are saying, and I agree, but I think that there is more to it than people abusing their bodies and then crying that they want medical service to "fix" them. The fact remains that doctors are not in the charity business, and are entitled to charge what they wish. If a doctor's prices are too high, if they don't accept insurance assignment, a patient has the option not to patronize that doctor.

There is a finite amount of medical resources. One of the parameters for accessing those resources is the ability to pay for them, as with any other commodity. People DO have choices. There are different kinds of insurance plans. Fee for service plans cost the most, but allow the patient the most flexibility in choosing doctors and accessing services. PPOs and HMOs cost less, but place certain restrictions on physician choice, and the ability to access certain services.

Each person has a decision to make, as to how important health care is to him/her. As far as I am concerned, I would rather do without some luxury,
and spend my money on the best policy that I can afford. A lot of people don't feel that way. In that case, they have made a choice, and sometimes the choice flies back in their face. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

0 Replies

I'm trying to find out more about what is possible with health insurance -- my memory on this is vague right now so I make no particular claims as I don't have enough to back them up, but I've been reading about how there is enough pork in the system as it exists that it wouldn't necessarily have to be that a universal healh care system would take money out of other endeavors. That the money that is already there for stuff like administration could be repurposed, for greater efficiency and for the greater good.

0 Replies

Ossobucco- Most hospitals have funds set aside for indigent persons who have no insurance, and come into the ER with a life threatening condition. There is also Medicaid, for low income persons.

I think what people have difficulty with, is the allocation of new, very expensive treatments.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I agree with a lot of that. I think sending feelers (as opposed to manned missions) to outer space is different, though, because it is one of the best ways to fund pure science, which I think is worthy on a lot of levels. The obvious level is all of the incidental quality-of-life stuff that comes out of scientific exploration (including medical advances), but I also think that scientific exploration should be well-funded in and of itself, and space feelers are the glamorous angle, the "OK I'll fund that" angle.

I'm all for funding pure science and agree that glamour goals make that funding more likely, at least as trickle down. I wouldn't cut out space exploration; was using it as a monetary marker.... whereas I'd sure cut out some expensive and (many other adjectives) military forays.

0 Replies

Yeh...

0 Replies

There's a big gap between the possibility - not always fulfilled - of getting medical care at a hospital for an immediate heart attack or stroke situation, and getting adequate medical care for various very serious but not iminently fatal conditions. As Green Witch mentioned, many people fall in the category of being over Medicaid level of income and yet can't afford adequate care.

0 Replies

I'm interested, Sozobe, on what you find re not needing to take funds from other endeavors to fund
a more equable health care system.

0 Replies

Osso- To be sure, there are people who fall between the cracks. But I think that they are in the minority. I think that some people are more concerned about consumables than health care. It is a matter of attitude.
I would bet that there are many families, if they cut out some unnecessary spending, could afford decent health care.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

I see entitlement as a word generally used by folks with the entitlement of adequate financial accounts, with relatively short personal experience with what I think of as the real world, which is a world where best intentions often don't work out, re jobs, careers, simply finding enough money to house, clothe, and feed a family. I know most who use the word 'entitlement' work or worked hard, and think everyone else should step up to the plate. I agree that stepping up to the plate is good, but not on the rather punitive views re those who fail to get to first base, much less third base.

Again, if you will read what I have posted, you will see I am not differentiating between the have's and have nots in pure dollar amounts.
It is not a matter so much of having the money, it's if a best effort was made.

Perhaps you find the use of that word in general, but not in this case. You show you have put forth your best effort, but have not made enough through your best intent and efforts, fine, you are indeed entitled.

For those who do not put forth their best effort, they are not. Part of that showing you have made your best effort is by showing you have in the past not only attempted to make enough money, but also attempt your best to take care of yourself.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Ossobucco- Most hospitals have funds set aside for indigent persons who have no insurance, and come into the ER with a life threatening condition. There is also Medicaid, for low income persons.

The problem is hospitals are carrying the financial burden of those who cannot pay. It's why you might be billed $8 for an aspirin. I have found through my own experience that hospitals and doctors can be wonderful and generous when dealing with the uninsured. I barter with my family doctor for yearly check ups. My hospital told me if I needed their services I could pay them off on a schedule over a few years.
The bigger problem is with labs and pharmacys - they want the money and they want it now. My SIL pays $175 per month for a medication she needs to prevent seizures, it is not covered by her current insurance. She makes a decent amount of money and just pays for it out of pocket. If she lost her job for an extended period of time she would not be able to afford the medication. Americans have no safety net. I've heard stories of people who had cancer and their insurance was cancelled or premiums tripled. The number one reason people declare personal bankruptcy is because of medical debt, not because they couldn't stop themselves from buying Prada.

As to "pork" paying for national health care - the only pork I can think of is the war in Iraq. The cost of "bringing Democracy to Iraq" has gone well beyond the cost of Hillary Clinton's health care proposal.

I'm hoping the lobbyists for General Motors, Ford, GE, Boeing, IBM etc will start making noise in Washington for more help with the health care crisis. Government does not listen to the little folk, but the big corporations are groaning under the burden of paying health care costs and it hurts us as an economic power. When corporate America is unhappy the government takes notice.

It was mentioned that health care should be the right of all people. I don't know about it being a right, but it would certainly make us a better society.

0 Replies

I would be very leery of the government taking over health care. They have not shown in the past to be very efficient or judicious in their spending. I also object to the entire idea on philosophical grounds.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890

Medicare is a successful medical plan run both efficiently and economically.

That is before the president and the gang of idiots in congress come up with that abortion called the prescription drug benefit.

0 Replies

I'm thinking Phoenix has one valid point, Philosophy! That's really where the debate rests.! My personal philosophy feels like "Health-Education-Welfare" is the primary function of government while I realize that "War/Defense" is the primary function of government for most americans. I'm also thinking this is a good area for reasoned debate, I applaud Phoenix (not as much as I applaud meself of course) I am a liberal.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Phoenix32890

Medicare is a successful medical plan run both efficiently and economically.

That is before the president and the gang of idiots in congress come up with that abortion called the prescription drug benefit.

I have to agree with you on that one, partially. I have been on Medicare for a short time. What I am finding, is that many of the procedures that my Blue Cross paid for without a whimper, is being turned down by Medicare. Then I have to go through a whole rigamarole documenting why a particular test had to be done, and after a lot of aggravation, I usually prevail. It is a real pain in the butt. The difference is that my Blue Cross plan cost me close to 10 grand a year. The Medicare, Medigap and Part D Plan is less than half of that.

You are right about the prescription drug benefit. I had no problem, because I am computer literate, and know how to access the information on the internet. In fact, when I chose a plan, I downloaded 55 pages of the formulary, which is much more detailed than what the company with whom I bought the drug coverage sent me.

I do realize that for those people who are not as net savvy, or don't even have the internet, choosing the appropriate drug plan could be extremely difficult. For the very elderly, it could be next to impossible to figure out one from the other.

I had had a drug plan with my Medigap policy last year, but the one that I have now is better. For people who formerly had no drug plan, it will be a financial help.

0 Replies

A Cancer Drug Shows Promise, at a Price That Many Can't Pay

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know