Nice post Matt...Like I had said before add up the cost to care for a patient over time in scans, medications, complications, testing, and at the end ICU and then transplant..... not to mention lost productivity and sometime even a drain on the social welfare system.These cost dwarf treatment costs, the sooner you knock it down the sooner the costs go down to treat the person....The article has some very narrow minded thinking, and I, like many others got my Hep C from the health care system where most of it came from anyway....IV drug users I don't believe caused or created the disease they just happen to spread it because of co mingling blood products, not unlike the early days of tatoos etc. Some people always want to put a disease in a category that makes it bad, and if you have it, well you must have done something wrong to get it.
I remember when I was very little and heard someone had cancer, it was like whoa! stay back you don't want to catch it, I think there were stigmas on those diseases back when we didn't know as much as we do today about these illnesses.....now they have great walks and huge fund raisers and global support foundations to find cures.
Nobody says geez how did you get cancer, although smoking, drinking and many other equally damaging vises can cause those illnesses as well, so why are people stereotyping this disease? it will take time but as more of the story of the innocent victims surface it will be treated similarly...at least I hope. We need a high society person to stand up and say they have it and get some better visibility instead of it being a back alley illness.
Isiscat2011 said
Jun 13, 2014
Astute observations, Matt. I'm afraid it could take a couple of years as you have stated, but I am hoping it doesn't for the sake of those who do not yet have severe liver damage, but do wish to treat now. We often discuss pharma and insurance but I think we tend to overlook the medical profession's role in all of this. The medical profession has a tremendous amount of power in determining how things play out because it establishes the SOC.
If SOC became all orals AND hepc treatment was considered (by the medical profession) to be necessary for all patients, regardless of liver status, then insurance companies would be legally obligated to pay for all orals for all patients. The only way around paying, that I can think of, would be to to include "specialty drug" clauses in their policies although at some point such clauses would face serious legal challenges. Likewise, medicare/medicaid must pay for SOC tx.
Unfortunately physicians, at least in the US, do not uniformly have a strong history of being patient advocates; some just tend to go with the flow and others are even known to work against the best interests of patients (those who work in the insurance industry for example). This was a very disheartening realization for me because I grew up with a solid respect for the medical profession. Times change.
Perhaps the medical profession will not agree that all hepc patients who so choose, regardless of liver status, should be treated with all orals until costs come down. But that does seem to be contrary to the Hippocratic oath.
Matt Chris said
Jun 13, 2014
They are using Sovaldi as a poster child for a out of the control pharma industry which if you were not well informed about all things HCV you could easily be swayed and disgusted on how could there be a $1,000 pill. When you think about it, it is disgusting. But for the so called doctor expert saying it isn't that great of a drug, she is just pandering to the disgust factor.
Its hard to figure, but will Gilead and others companies cave in to all the pressure about their per pill cost and change their price someday. One are member suggested that Gilead should make the prescription cost the same for all treatments no matter if its 8, 12, or 24 weeks.
There is bound to be some price moderation/adjustment once 3 companies offer 90%+ SVR rates choices come available to choose from.
I think most of this high pricing and disgusting viewpoints of the Hep-C patients medications will calm down in the next two years but until then the people in power will limit those needing treatment with the most costly drugs to those with the most urgent medical needs. Really that's short sited because they should add up all the patients that tried multiple rounds of Interferon and Riba and plus one DAA it's way more than 12 weeks of Sovaldi.
I hope this pressure of big Pharma does rein in there cost of newer meds because they are out of control, its a shame to charge a high price just because you can.
matt
Isiscat2011 said
Jun 12, 2014
I just took a look at some of the comments, longid. Quite a few people are of the opinion that the newer drugs are "designer" luxury items. Clearly they don't understand that for many the older drugs are not only ineffective but also carry serious short and long term safety and health risks. (And, are not cost effective.) They seem to think that anyone can just take the old drugs, suffer a few temporary side effects, and then clear the virus. So much misinformation.
Isiscat2011 said
Jun 12, 2014
longld wrote:
This is especially scary since many of us predicted death panels with the gov't takeover of healthcare (Palin was especially attacked) - this is a death panel by another name. One Doctor decides that the Gilead treatment is not efficient.....
I especially liked one of the comments; "It might just be a good idea for people to make sure they do not get infected with HepC, B, and HIV, ect.". I started screaming with help from my Riba - especially since the medical profession gave me my HepC!!!!!!!!!
This isn't about the government takeover of healthcare. On the contrary, it is a consequence of the private corporate interests takeover of government. Lawmakers refuse to cap costs because they are catering to pharma interests.
I agree that the virus has been significantly spread by the healthcare system itself. Also, through the military. Yet, most media reports continue to spread the misinformation that this is primarily an iv drug user disease.
longld said
Jun 12, 2014
This is especially scary since many of us predicted death panels with the gov't takeover of healthcare (Palin was especially attacked) - this is a death panel by another name. One Doctor decides that the Gilead treatment is not efficient.....
I especially liked one of the comments; "It might just be a good idea for people to make sure they do not get infected with HepC, B, and HIV, ect.". I started screaming with help from my Riba - especially since the medical profession gave me my HepC!!!!!!!!!
Isiscat2011 said
Jun 12, 2014
I hear you, JimBob. Notice how the article includes a photo of a child in the doctor's office and then warns readers that spending money on hepc tx will deprive others in need of health care who have "cancer, diabetes, and other conditions." The subtext is to shift the blame for the budget crisis to hepc patients who want costly "unproven" and often unnecessary treatments. I expect we will be seeing more of this nonsense in the months to come.
-- Edited by Isiscat2011 on Friday 13th of June 2014 02:44:00 AM
jimbob said
Jun 12, 2014
...well, there are WMD's in Iraq too!
Seems to me this article should have been addressed to Gilead, or those "national lawmakers" who are more concerned with whose funding their war chest.
Isiscat2011 said
Jun 12, 2014
Dzdayscomin wrote:
What I got out of that is that is the budget is more important than a human life...
Yes, and pharma greed is creating the budget crisis. The answer is obvious: Cap pharma profits.
The argument that capping profits would harm drug innovation is NOT supported by the facts based on studies conducted by our own government. There is simply no good reason that this outrageous level of greed should be supported by our government. Our national lawmakers need to act.
Dzdayscomin said
Jun 12, 2014
Wow............I object!!
Quote from article...."While the new drugs offer great promise, the scientific evidence for them "is still poor," the staff report reads. "The cost could potentially devastate the OHP budget."
I and many of us are proof the that scientific evidence is good......the last part is what they are worried about.
What I got out of that is that is the budget is more important than a human life...do they want to pay for all those transplants or critical care patients, i'm guessing it takes less than a week in the hospital in ICU to eat up the cost of treatment that could prevent it. Shame on these people...Simon can use some of that in his article !!
Nice post Matt...Like I had said before add up the cost to care for a patient over time in scans, medications, complications, testing, and at the end ICU and then transplant..... not to mention lost productivity and sometime even a drain on the social welfare system.These cost dwarf treatment costs, the sooner you knock it down the sooner the costs go down to treat the person....The article has some very narrow minded thinking, and I, like many others got my Hep C from the health care system where most of it came from anyway....IV drug users I don't believe caused or created the disease they just happen to spread it because of co mingling blood products, not unlike the early days of tatoos etc. Some people always want to put a disease in a category that makes it bad, and if you have it, well you must have done something wrong to get it.
I remember when I was very little and heard someone had cancer, it was like whoa! stay back you don't want to catch it, I think there were stigmas on those diseases back when we didn't know as much as we do today about these illnesses.....now they have great walks and huge fund raisers and global support foundations to find cures.
Nobody says geez how did you get cancer, although smoking, drinking and many other equally damaging vises can cause those illnesses as well, so why are people stereotyping this disease? it will take time but as more of the story of the innocent victims surface it will be treated similarly...at least I hope. We need a high society person to stand up and say they have it and get some better visibility instead of it being a back alley illness.
Astute observations, Matt. I'm afraid it could take a couple of years as you have stated, but I am hoping it doesn't for the sake of those who do not yet have severe liver damage, but do wish to treat now. We often discuss pharma and insurance but I think we tend to overlook the medical profession's role in all of this. The medical profession has a tremendous amount of power in determining how things play out because it establishes the SOC.
If SOC became all orals AND hepc treatment was considered (by the medical profession) to be necessary for all patients, regardless of liver status, then insurance companies would be legally obligated to pay for all orals for all patients. The only way around paying, that I can think of, would be to to include "specialty drug" clauses in their policies although at some point such clauses would face serious legal challenges. Likewise, medicare/medicaid must pay for SOC tx.
Unfortunately physicians, at least in the US, do not uniformly have a strong history of being patient advocates; some just tend to go with the flow and others are even known to work against the best interests of patients (those who work in the insurance industry for example). This was a very disheartening realization for me because I grew up with a solid respect for the medical profession. Times change.
Perhaps the medical profession will not agree that all hepc patients who so choose, regardless of liver status, should be treated with all orals until costs come down. But that does seem to be contrary to the Hippocratic oath.
They are using Sovaldi as a poster child for a out of the control pharma industry which if you were not well informed about all things HCV you could easily be swayed and disgusted on how could there be a $1,000 pill. When you think about it, it is disgusting. But for the so called doctor expert saying it isn't that great of a drug, she is just pandering to the disgust factor.
Its hard to figure, but will Gilead and others companies cave in to all the pressure about their per pill cost and change their price someday. One are member suggested that Gilead should make the prescription cost the same for all treatments no matter if its 8, 12, or 24 weeks.
There is bound to be some price moderation/adjustment once 3 companies offer 90%+ SVR rates choices come available to choose from.
I think most of this high pricing and disgusting viewpoints of the Hep-C patients medications will calm down in the next two years but until then the people in power will limit those needing treatment with the most costly drugs to those with the most urgent medical needs. Really that's short sited because they should add up all the patients that tried multiple rounds of Interferon and Riba and plus one DAA it's way more than 12 weeks of Sovaldi.
I hope this pressure of big Pharma does rein in there cost of newer meds because they are out of control, its a shame to charge a high price just because you can.
matt
I just took a look at some of the comments, longid. Quite a few people are of the opinion that the newer drugs are "designer" luxury items. Clearly they don't understand that for many the older drugs are not only ineffective but also carry serious short and long term safety and health risks. (And, are not cost effective.) They seem to think that anyone can just take the old drugs, suffer a few temporary side effects, and then clear the virus. So much misinformation.
This isn't about the government takeover of healthcare. On the contrary, it is a consequence of the private corporate interests takeover of government. Lawmakers refuse to cap costs because they are catering to pharma interests.
I agree that the virus has been significantly spread by the healthcare system itself. Also, through the military. Yet, most media reports continue to spread the misinformation that this is primarily an iv drug user disease.
This is especially scary since many of us predicted death panels with the gov't takeover of healthcare (Palin was especially attacked) - this is a death panel by another name. One Doctor decides that the Gilead treatment is not efficient.....
I especially liked one of the comments; "It might just be a good idea for people to make sure they do not get infected with HepC, B, and HIV, ect.". I started screaming with help from my Riba - especially since the medical profession gave me my HepC!!!!!!!!!
I hear you, JimBob. Notice how the article includes a photo of a child in the doctor's office and then warns readers that spending money on hepc tx will deprive others in need of health care who have "cancer, diabetes, and other conditions." The subtext is to shift the blame for the budget crisis to hepc patients who want costly "unproven" and often unnecessary treatments. I expect we will be seeing more of this nonsense in the months to come.
-- Edited by Isiscat2011 on Friday 13th of June 2014 02:44:00 AM
Seems to me this article should have been addressed to Gilead, or those "national lawmakers" who are more concerned with whose funding their war chest.
Yes, and pharma greed is creating the budget crisis. The answer is obvious: Cap pharma profits.
The argument that capping profits would harm drug innovation is NOT supported by the facts based on studies conducted by our own government. There is simply no good reason that this outrageous level of greed should be supported by our government. Our national lawmakers need to act.
Wow............I object!!
Quote from article...."While the new drugs offer great promise, the scientific evidence for them "is still poor," the staff report reads. "The cost could potentially devastate the OHP budget."
I and many of us are proof the that scientific evidence is good......the last part is what they are worried about.
What I got out of that is that is the budget is more important than a human life...do they want to pay for all those transplants or critical care patients, i'm guessing it takes less than a week in the hospital in ICU to eat up the cost of treatment that could prevent it. Shame on these people...Simon can use some of that in his article !!
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2014/06/facing_a_168-million_price_tag.html