That, my friend, is because private insurance basically uses Medicare standards (with local tweaks) to determine a myriad of coverage rules. So what government decides trickles down through the entire system. Don’t ever think government doesn’t direct the course of health care financing, because it does.
A classic textbook “insight” from an outsider who doesn’t have to live with the consequences of his beliefs. As a very smart co-worker of mine once said, “Every job is easy for the person who doesn’t have to do it.”
This is really interesting. I think the WHO has written some papers arguing that older versions are just fine for the developing world, and advocate for providing wide access to those, rather than aiming to improve access to newer versions, because of a similar cost-benefit analysis. I always think about how much that analysis is not revealing.
Yes, R&D must be funded somehow BUT why do WE have to bear all the cost while costs in MANY countries covers Production, Distribution and some Reasonable Profit?
Isn’t that the same reason that NPH & R are reasonably priced at WalMart? A couple years ago price at Walmart was $24 while all other pharmacies was around $100 per vial. WalMart low price one month might be for Humulin and then 2 months later it would be for Novolin. IMO it depended on which was contracted at the lowest cost.
[quote=“Tim12, post:3, topic:57062”]
R+N twice a day
[/quote] - I was on R+N twice a day for over 20 years. Not that I am planning to return to them but for potential reference as a starting point, how did u break up the Daily Totals? IE 30% AM, 35% Noon, 25% PM, 10% Bedtime
I agree about those NPH lows. I have had many low-lows since being on MDI and the pump (1.6, 1.8 mmol/L and the like), but NPH used to cause lows that would incapacitate me and make me unable to treat myself. I haven’t experienced any lows where I’ve needed outside help or needed people to call 911 for me since getting off NPH. And the severe lows from NPH were so easy to trigger: a half hour of unexpected activity or eating lunch half an hour late was enough to make one pass out from a low.
I don’t think I understood your question/point… Someone has to pay for R&D… who do you think should pay for it?
In our Free Market system, those who benefit – in theory – are the ones who bear these costs. This is through amortization over the profitable life of the invention, usually the 20 year patent life.
In other models, these costs are borne by the general public through government funding. Many prefer this model (some of them good friends of mine ); I do not for a multitude of reasons.
So there you have at least two ways to “pay for it”, I’d argue the two most popular. What were you driving at with your question? Was this what you were looking for?
Unfortunately, healthcare is not a free market. Through legal, regulatory and policy intervention these companies are able to operate without transparency, fairness or open competition. Companies like Novo Nordisk (almost entirely diabetes) have enjoyed a 30% margin and 15-20% profit. I would like that. And claims that they need to get back their R&D, baloney. They spend twice that amount on marketing, and much of their R&D is in fact what we would classify as marketing. They whine, but what they whine about is how much they spend on marketing. I am suggesting that diabetes, like vaccination has such a profound economic impact on our society that we take control of the situation. We should not make this a profit center for greedy companies. Which is what has happened.
Seems that US patients pay the highest costs for most any meds. Why else travel South or North of the border to bring home meds?
Perhaps another fair example is Medical Tourism to Thailand, etc
Not that I believe all medical innovations are developed in the US but just seems that we pay the brunt of the costs.
And most of that gravy comes from the U.S. In Europe, they can only charge a tiny fraction of the prices that they are able to collect here. For a medical provider, selling product in the U.S. is like shooting fish in a barrel.
); I do not for a multitude of reasons.