Healthcare reform in US and Diabetics...What do you know?

Type 1 and LADA
21

This may not exactly fit the topic, but I have an idea that MIGHT help reduce bills for medications, and keep the suppliers charges in line with reality.

The drug companies have been saying for years now that they NEED to charge extreme prices for new drugs because:

  1. It takes so long to get FDA approvals after extensive testing and studies that they must do to get there, and
  2. Patents must be applied for as soon as possible after the new drug is seen workable to cover them, but they run out so much of the lifespan of the patent before the FDA approval comes through that they MUST charge all outdoors for each dose that most can’t afford it.

So, this all came to mind when I was at an AARP seminar about health care reform. If they want to keep the pharmaceutical companies from doing things this way it would work best if they not only changed the health care industry itself but the Patents system as well. If a pharmaceutical patent was andled in a different way, so that once the application was accepted and presumably approved they would be protected, BUT the clock wouldn’t start for the protection until the FDA cleared the drug for sale. After that they would have the full, or a given portion anyway, of the 17 (or is it 20?) years to sell it at a much more reasonable price.
Of course the pharmaceutical companies would swear this couldn’t work, they’d go broke before it really affected their results, so it should be made effective for existing drugs that haven’t quite been released for generic output by orther companies.
Now if all concerned would talk to their Congresscritters about this, who knows what might happen?

22

I cannot even imagine being told I can only test my bg 3 times a day. That is absurd!!! I feel for you and others in a similar situation :frowning: This reform proposal scares the hell out of me …

23

How insane is it that they had to remove the “end of life” piece from the bill because of the spin that has been put on it?!
That just blows my mind!
This was not meant to be a negative thing - although some have claimed its a way of killing off patients which I cannot even believe!
It was something put in so that doctors can get paid to talk with their patients on their end-of-life options!

I want to live the end of my life the same way I’m living the rest of my life - having a much control as I can, having this in the bill was just giving a options! Options - exactly what we are all always screaming about!
UGH - Politics have always got to get in the way!

24

I agree, Stacey. The option for counseling has been in the hospice legislation under Medicare for a long, long time.
I think those who can calm down long enough will realize that the brouhaha has inflamed those who are easily inflamed – and damaged legislation.

25

Europe was pretty cool when I was living there and people seemed to have a lot of freedom and choice in how they lived their lives!

26

The cost of health care is becoming our burden because the insurance companies are charging our employers more. It’s not the employer its the insurance companies.

My company also went through layoffs and our health insurance cost are going up in January. They have a 4 billion dollar trust and still can’t afford to offer health care at lower costs. I’m sure part of the reason they downsized is to save money on benefits.

How high are the costs going to continue to grow? When is it enough?

27

Andreina,

Thank you for posting this link. I visited the Dialogue4Heath site and browsed a bit. The sponsor involved in this project have very interesting backgrounds and they offer a lot of answers to the types of questions that I’m interested in.

I’m looking forward to spending more time with the website and participating in the discussion.

Thanks again - we need more information like this!

28

There is no competition now and that’s why costs are so high. A single payer system would insure a reasonable cost for health care. And doctors can tell us now, do as I say or I won’t treat you. Actually, it’s often pay what I charge or I won’t treat you.

And I don’t know about you but I want to have say so over how the end of my life is treated. If I don’t want to be hooked up to machines then I want to have the right to say no, or give my family the right to say no. I also want the doctors to get paid for counseling me and my family at a time when we may have to face some real difficult decisions. That’s what ‘end of live’ in this bill is all about. No one is going to force you to die! There going to give you the choice on how you want to handle that difficult issue.

And if it is gone I don’t see how that could make more room for Type 1 diabetics. More room for what? discussion? rights? lower costs?

29

I’m interested in your idea but I’m not sure I fully understand how this would work? Could you please elaborate?

I do think the new bill will address ways to improve the system and make it work more efficiently. New ideas are very important. Nice to see someone thinking outside the box.

Thank you!

30

All insurance is regulated by the states, and in order to operate in say California, a plan must be compliant with California insurance regs even if the plan and the company offering the plan is located in another state (say Texas, for example). The American Diabetes Association has lobbied extensively in each of the states where diabetes testing supplies are not mandated by state law to ensure coverage is offered in those states, but it remains a messy process.

31

Does this mean that every insurance company has to cover testing supplies? Can they still chose how much to cover and which testing supplies?

My insurance company covers a higher percentage for One Touch than for Free Style. Since I am now using the OmniPod, I chose to go with the Free Style meter but it hurts to pay more for their strips.

Is the cost that much different? Why would they pay more for One Touch?

I’m hoping that health care reform will address this issue, - from what I have heard the new reform seems to favor preventative care more than the current system. I think that would mean that more strips would be covered not less.

I’m interested in hearing more on this subject.

32

No Dave,

I also have BCBS … I test 12-14 times a day without CGMS, or 6-10 with. All covered by BCBS. I’m not sure why they’re pulling her leg.

33

Catch this thoughtful response to the issue of “end-of-life” decisions: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/32410950#32410950 Tell me again how this is different from the Terri Schiavo embarrassment?

34

yea!!!

35

Good points Scott…I heard some talk of national standards for insurance companies to bring down the costs of care. Why I think it is so important that persons w/ diabetes and those advocating for them…get in on the discussions while these points are being clarified and coverage determined.

36

Funny – a physical is one of the ONLY things my plan covers. Everything else is out of pocket to the tune of $200+ per office visit. No reimbursement.

37

Scott,
I just checked out your blog and wanted to thank you for engaging in an honest discussion and giving us the opportunity to learn the facts about who is really behind the opposition to reforming health care.

I would encourage everyone on this site to visit Scott’s blog - http://bit.ly/Wo5lU

The insurance companies are making billions off of us and they are misleading the American public and hiding behind so-called public interest groups.

Most of you have noticed that I am very passionate about this subject. And I apologize for letting myself get pulled into the nasty political battle. This is not politics and we’re not here to talk about right or left.

I think it’s so important for all of us to get involved and do everything we can to make a difference. This is why I am so vocal on this subject.

I hope more of you will post websites that discuss the facts without all the yelling, lies, and just silly bigoted ideas.

Our life depends on this!

Thanks again Scott, I look forward to reading more from you.

38

the government and big pharma are twisting their tale at least as much (my personal opinion is that they outright lie a lot more) than the insurance companies.

Insurance compnies have become what they are (and big pharma to some extent) because we have become a nation of sue happy got to have someone to blame people …until their is tort reform that will not change and insurance co’s. big pharma dr’s and hospitals ( and all the other related medciald professions) will continue to practice defensive medicine adn continue to drive up costs.

A government run system will not bring down costs, we will just pay the costs in taxes instead of premiums and it will still not be fair and for most medical care will decline.

39

Denise,

I agree with you on the tort reform, we need change on that issue. Thank you for bringing it up.

I still support a government run system and feel it will bring down costs. We all have our own opinions on this. I think it’s important to listen to both sides.

Thanks!

40

We have to understand several important ting in this debate. First as a health care consumer, we are in essence paying a premium to support the rest of the world when it comes to drug development. Lets take Canada for instance that caps the cost of drugs. Because the US is not capped and not regulated, insurance Big Phrama will see those capped cost drugs in Canada for one price and in the US for another price. Since the world seems to be happy to force those costs, and profit on the US consumer it is no wonder, they talked legislators to insert a provision in the medicare drug bill that prevents the federal government from negotiating for drug pricing. If you are US citizen is it a good deal that we pay for drug development in other countries?

Second, the cost of health care is going up almost 2 or 3 times the cost of inflation. So the same procedure at the same facility last year will cost more than the cost of inflation this year. Now why is that? Well for one, providers have to shed the cost of the uninsured someplace. While we diabetics, think this would be terrible, imagine if suddenly 25% of the US population did not have health insurance. That means that the other 75% would effectively have to pay for the 25% who are not insured. A tipping point is coming, when it will be cheaper to be uninsured and in bankruptcy than be insured. When that happens, no company will provide health insurance subsidies.

We have a major provider who went bankrupt this year. Yes thati s correct, GM, is the largest provider of health insurance in the country, they went bankrupt. Ok they are out now, but one of the reasons they went in was to shed health insurance costs on retirees. Suppose those people lose health coverage int he near future? Suddenly all of those people will be old, many will be sick and none will have health insurance. We have to realize that should that happen, people willnto stop getitng health care, they will instead stop paying for it. If you have a policy you will pay for it. there are no free lunches.

Finally American industry is crippled because of health costs. in japan cars are not taxed with private health care, same in China, Brazil, Canada, etc etc. Who pays? well society pays using taxes. SI that fairer than paying for each car, for each each pan, for each whatever we buy that was made in the US for health care is not a good system. Our products cost more, or manufacturing capacity is being drained, and workers are losing jobs or not being hired. Of you beleive in the American way of life and the military dominance, we have got to fix health care. Otherwise, we will get what we get, reduced manufacturing capacity, reduced national security and thousands of people without health care, that will simply cause more industry to depart. liek the service economy? Like our kids working part tiem jobs at the hamburger shack? Oppose health care reform.

rick phillips