|
i cannot stop laughing and crying https://twitter.com/Gizmodo/status/1136585123900604416
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:i cannot stop laughing and crying Can we drag these fuckers into the street yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 02:24
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:Can we drag these fuckers into the street yet. For politely asking journalists to not publish fake news? smdh In other biopharma news, WaPo published this story yesterday on Pfizer/Alzheimer's with a push alert. Irresponsible stuff meant to fool the ignorant about what insurance claims data is and what the findings say. https://twitter.com/Dereklowe/status/1136620890572185601?s=19 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
the article is dated a month ago but my mom brought this up to me today because they are starting to get it in at her place of work and it's so loving cruel I couldn't help but laugh.quote:AveXis Announces Innovative Zolgensma® Gene Therapy Access Programs for US Payers and Families honestly this is just a really fancy way of holding a gun to the head of 1000 babies a year in the US and saying "you can either pay someone else $4 million dollars, or your child can die, or we can be heroes and save your child for the low low price of $2 million." in this country, you can either have a healthy child or not be in debt for the rest of your life. All of the people who profit off of this drug should be in prison for a very long time. I'm gene positive for a disease that currently has some very promising gene therapy treatments in the drug pipeline. My dad is fully in the worst stages of this disease, and is now getting to the point where we're considering wheelchairs, home healthcare workers and feeding tubes, and 10 years ago when I got tested I was eased by the fact that these treatments would likely be available by the time I needed them, so I never worried about it. Fast forward to the present day, I'm not optimistic at all. And it's not because I don't think the treatments will get there but because the drugs are going to be literally millions of dollars and likely gently caress with my finances/insurance for the rest of my life (not that I'm likely to pay the whole price but there's no way whatever insurance i end up with at that point isn't gonna try to launch me out of a cannon rather than paying $3 million or more).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 11:46
|
|
|
Sounds like s great reason to file bankruptcy to me, loving morons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:23
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:honestly this is just a really fancy way of holding a gun to the head of 1000 babies a year in the US and saying "you can either pay someone else $4 million dollars, or your child can die, or we can be heroes and save your child for the low low price of $2 million." in this country, you can either have a healthy child or not be in debt for the rest of your life. All of the people who profit off of this drug should be in prison for a very long time. Ignoring who pays for it or out of pocket cost exposure, how much should the company (and those that invested in the clinical development) be reimbursed for the therapy and why that amount?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
Imagine if you had to pay 2 million dollars for the polio vaccine just because it would keep you from ever contracting the disease and think of the savings!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Ignoring who pays for it or out of pocket cost exposure, how much should the company (and those that invested in the clinical development) be reimbursed for the therapy and why that amount? their assets should be seized and they’ll receive nothing in exchange
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 12:50
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:their assets should be seized and they’ll receive nothing in exchange do you believe this would have any impact on private sector biopharmaceutical investment and innovation moving forward?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:do you believe this would have any impact on private sector biopharmaceutical investment and innovation moving forward? Yes, they would be incentivized to price medications or treatments at levels that normal people can afford without going bankrupt or causing them to be financially ruined forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 13:19
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Ignoring who pays for it or out of pocket cost exposure, how much should the company (and those that invested in the clinical development) be reimbursed for the therapy and why that amount? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:do you believe this would have any impact on private sector biopharmaceutical investment and innovation moving forward? imagine the number of man-hours freed up by you, personally, no longer having to tell yourself "i am a good person, despite my paycheck being based on a program of amplifying human suffering."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:do you believe this would have any impact on private sector biopharmaceutical investment and innovation moving forward? investors are really dumb so probably not, they didn't learn anything from pets.com either it would be cool if it did though because then we can just fund public research and hire all the researchers who work for a decent professional salary instead of for the hope they'll get to wring millions and billions out of suffering desperate people
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
This is a rehash of an old argument in this thread from half a year ago about orphan drugs. I'm a fan of nationalizing many aspects of the US healthcare system, but I don't get how nationalizing drug development (not research, drug development) is supposed to help this problem. I suspect that nationalizing drug development would just cause orphan diseases to be even more ignored. I don't think there is a lot of political will to divert the attention of the medical community from working on more common illnesses like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's and instead having them focusing on the gazillions of orphan diseases, and there are a lot of other practical problems with doing that as well. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jun 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is a rehash of an old argument in this thread from half a year ago about orphan drugs. I'm a fan of nationalizing many aspects of the US healthcare system, but I don't get how nationalizing drug development (not research, drug development) is supposed to help this problem. I've seen Sanders and other people trying to solve this problem talking about a financial reward system from a consortium of international governments for entities that create cures/treatments/other useful medications, which isn't perfect, but does creates a clear incentive for that research to continue and also for governments to be able to distribute said medications to people who need it without any profit incentive, rather than letting a coalition of assholes charge parents of babies $2 million+ for them
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Ignoring who pays for it or out of pocket cost exposure, how much should the company (and those that invested in the clinical development) be reimbursed for the therapy and why that amount? any scientists responsible for the research should be paid a fair salary and purchasing and upkeep of any facilities and materials necessary for the process should be paid for but also any executives from the company should be launched out of a cannon towards the sun
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
The government would definitely have a more fair and just funding and approvals process than the way industry chooses what to research which is "are the people with the disease rich enough to give us 10,000,000% returns"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:divert the attention of the medical community from working on more common illnesses like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's and instead having them focusing on the gazillions of orphan diseases this comment makes no sense and corresponds to nothing about how research actually works this is something someone who plays Civilization and thinks research works by you pick something you want then you collect a predetermined amount of lightbulbs to get the technology would say oh right this is a comedy forum for computer nerds, carry on
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:this comment makes no sense and corresponds to nothing about how research actually works I'm not talking about basic research. The government already does basic research. I'm talking about drug development. Drug development is expensive, and the failure rate is high (not as high as in basic research obviously but the cost to evaluate each idea is much higher). Here's a post I made half a year ago about this: silence_kit posted:85% of drugs do not make it past FDA clinical trials. The product development isn't a layup. It is more like a heavily contested 3 point shot. Again, going back to my original post, I think you are under-rating the difficulty, investment, and effort involved in the product development. ----------------------------------------------------------------- DC Murderverse posted:I've seen Sanders and other people trying to solve this problem talking about a financial reward system from a consortium of international governments for entities that create cures/treatments/other useful medications, which isn't perfect, but does creates a clear incentive for that research to continue and also for governments to be able to distribute said medications to people who need it without any profit incentive, rather than letting a coalition of assholes charge parents of babies $2 million+ for them VitalSigns posted:The government would definitely have a more fair and just funding and approvals process than the way industry chooses what to research which is "are the people with the disease rich enough to give us 10,000,000% returns" I don't understand why the government(s) would spend the huge amounts of money to develop a bunch of drugs for the gazillions of uncommon and rare diseases when it could be spending that government money on developing drugs for common diseases which would improve the lives of more people. Where is the political will for option A over option B? silence_kit fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jun 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 03:49
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't understand why the government(s) would spend the huge amounts of money to develop a bunch of drugs for the gazillions of uncommon and rare diseases when it could be spending that government money on developing drugs for common diseases which would improve the lives of more people. Where is the political will for option A over option B? The belief is that any and all existing R&D spend would be nationalized with centralized budgeting and prioritization. Drug development currently moves forward based on risk adjusted NPV or rate of return that is acceptable to shareholders. In this future it would be some combination of probability of technical/regulatory success, unmet need, and reduction in total healthcare expenditures by addressing that unmet need. Voters would have no real idea how prioritization is determined nor need to care, similar to how voters today largely aren't aware of how NIH allocates its budget. You could debate whether such a system would yield more or less innovation, but it certainly could be done. The trickier thing is that this plan would require international cooperation / pooling of funds and essentially the elimination of drug patents. The US isn't going to spend $X billion on annual drug development and then produce the drug at cost for the entire world while China or whoever requires the US to pay for products they develop and manufacture. Without some mandated % of GDP contribution from all countries it creates race to the bottom where some will assume they can free ride off the spend + clinical advancements of other countries that are willing to put up the money and resources. There's no payoff or reward for spending more money on R&D or getting more drugs approved.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:The belief is that any and all existing R&D spend would be nationalized with centralized budgeting and prioritization. Drug development currently moves forward based on risk adjusted NPV or rate of return that is acceptable to shareholders. In this future it would be some combination of probability of technical/regulatory success, unmet need, and reduction in total healthcare expenditures by addressing that unmet need. Voters would have no real idea how prioritization is determined nor need to care, similar to how voters today largely aren't aware of how NIH allocates its budget. and imagine a world where you, drug marketing analytics boy, could devote your efforts to something like that instead of scaremongering over how if your employer doesn't get to gouge diabetics on insulin, nobody will ever develop another treatment ever again. people on a poverty-wracked island that's been the subject of unremitting trade warfare for decades managed to figure out a way to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission your paymasters decided just wasn't cost-beneficial enough to look into. an industry that lacks you is demonstrably better at providing the aid that is (hypothetically) the thing it is there to provide. imagine the horror, friend. the horror of people working on alleviating human suffering without having to run it by some insufferable nerd who says "well, yes, but can we hold the threat of death over them in order to extract rents if we give them this?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Yes, Yeowch, we get it. Socialism good, people that participate in profit-seeking industries today bad. Do you just scour the forums looking for people you don't like so you can make mean spirited personal comments while contributing zero subject area expertise or moving the conversation forward in an interesting way? Any thoughts or recommendations on how your ideal would be organized and run?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Yes, Yeowch, we get it. Socialism good, people that participate in profit-seeking industries today bad. Do you just scour the forums looking for people you don't like so you can make mean spirited personal comments while contributing zero subject area expertise or moving the conversation forward in an interesting way? feel free to click on the question mark by my name. i've been in this thread for considerably longer than you, and you might learn a thing or two about those icky "provider" people you're distantly aware have something to do with how healthcare actually gets distributed. not only can it be done. it has been done. and it has accomplished things it is your job to prevent from happening, on the grounds they're just not profitable enough. because there is an entire world of inefficiencies you have been carefully trained not to see, on the grounds you are one of them. you are extremely concerned about the drag on the system provided by the "free-riders" on pharmaceutical research. and that is a worthy concern!  it's just a little funny to hear concerns about drag coming from the bulbous, pus-seeping tumor on the underside of the wing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 05:56
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:feel free to click on the question mark by my name. i've been in this thread for considerably longer than you, and you might learn a thing or two about those icky "provider" people you're distantly aware have something to do with how healthcare actually gets distributed. Hmm, yes I see you have a fundamental understanding of the US healthcare system and the perverse and often contradictory incentives for each stakeholder in the supply chain. You aren't really breaking new ground here. But the reality is today that the vast, vast majority of drug development is done today by private for-profit companies, be it in the US or elsewhere. This will not automatically change under single payer. Countries with single payer or UHC systems today may have better negotiation power over reimbursement rates, but still purchase biopharmaceuticals and med devices from private companies rather than doing the clinical development themselves. Countries with single payer still have "sales and marketing" roles within these countries. So in your ideal world where private for-profit providers did not exist, specifically biopharma and med devices, what would that look like? How would it be structured and funded in the US and the rest of the world? How would development decisions be made? Simply saying the current system is flawed and could be improved doesn't absolve you from considering a wide range of implementation options, much like "single payer" isn't a singular and well-defined policy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't understand why the government(s) would spend the huge amounts of money to develop a bunch of drugs for the gazillions of uncommon and rare diseases when it could be spending that government money on developing drugs for common diseases which would improve the lives of more people. Where is the political will for option A over option B? dude have you ever looked at the federal budget, do you have any idea how much money is wasted on poo poo less important than drug research, orders of magnitude more than it would cost to develop every drug in the pipeline is spent on corporate welfare and pointless wars
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
The fact that the government can spend money wastefully is not an argument that, were the government to be solely responsible for all medical research, they would spend money wisely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The fact that the government can spend money wastefully is not an argument that, were the government to be solely responsible for all medical research, they would spend money wisely. He's arguing that there isn't enough money to do it, period, not that bad politicians could get elected who would prefer to spend that money on wars and tax cuts for the rich instead (thanks to voters like yall) Anyway it's not hard to be more compassionate than private drug companies whose only goal is maximizing the blood money they can make off human misery
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns, you are my loving hero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Can you imagine what the world would be like if the US government spent money on healthcare like it did on wars? We'd have a life expectancy of like 200 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
SpartanIvy posted:Can you imagine what the world would be like if the US government spent money on healthcare like it did on wars? We'd have a life expectancy of like 200 years. i don't think this is true, but we would definitely have way, way less people dying of easily treatable things because they don't have any way to get healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
We’d probably save a lot of money by lowering costs and keeping a lot of people from having to file bankruptcy but shhhhhhhhhhh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Even if you're a conservative, unhealthy people are unproductive people. It seems like a no-brainer until you remember that loss of healthcare is the cudgel used to keep employees compliant their labor cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
I just got off the phone with CIGNA and then the Marketplace.gov people. My COBRA coverage ends on August 20 and my new coverage currently doesn't start until Sept 1. Both groups of people told me it's impossible to move my new coverage start date to 20/21 so I don't have a gap in coverage. Am I actually just hosed for 10 days hoping I don't have an ER trip, or that my toddler doesn't get sick?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Yup
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Well gently caress me in the rear end. (also found the info here: https://www.healthcare.gov/have-job-based-coverage/if-you-lose-job-based-coverage/) BCBS has a number I can call for coverage directly from them (I guess) so I'll probably try calling them on monday to see if I can buy 10 days of coverage (lol double gently caress me). Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Should a colonoscopy cost the patient $3300? My united healthcare plan thinks it should. Oh, if my libertarian poo poo for brains youthful self could see me now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Don’t worry, if your medical bills ever get completely out of hand, just get NPR and CBS on the case and the insurance company will be publicly shamed into doing their due diligence and actually insuring you instead of ruining you with a half-million dollar bill: https://twitter.com/npr/status/1154829019583524865?s=21 See? Simple!
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Well that’s because the government pays for dialysis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Zapf Dingbat posted:Should a colonoscopy cost the patient $3300? My united healthcare plan thinks it should. No it shouldn't, shop around. I think mine was around $1000 but I had a doctor try to charge me $2000 and then sent my account to a "precollections" service which called me trying to collect the money a week before the procedure was supposed to be done. I then found a better doctor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
My wife and I are stuck in an absurdist comedy situation. She has a good job, and her job provides her with health insurance. Her health insurance covers medical and dental and it's through the same company. She suffers from a mild degenerative disease of the joints, and she has been experiencing some problems with her TMJ (the doctor was surprised that she wasn't writhing in pain given the situation of the joint). So she goes to see an oral surgeon per her PMC's instructions. The oral surgeon says that she needs a splint and will probably need surgery. At the end of the visit, the surgeon's office says that if she wants to do a splint, it will cost 1450, and that the insurance company has said that they don't cover that. So it starts: -call 1, to insurance, "yeah we cover it, talk to them again" - call 2, to provider, "no, we just tried it, they don't" - call 3, to insurance, "yes, we do, what code are they using?" - call 4, to provider "here's the code" - call 5, to insurance "that is a dental code, we cover it under medical, tell them to try under medical" - call 6, to provider "we tried under medical, it's denying it" - call 7, to insurance "ah, it's because your doctor is in network for dental, but not for medical, here's a list of oral surgeons that are in network for medical" checks email, list includes the doctor in question as both medical and dental so call 8, tomorrow, again, to insurance to ask wtf All of this for something that we will pay out of pocket anyways, because she hasn't met her deductible. It's just a matter of doing it this year (if doesn't count towards the deductible) or waiting till january (so it counts towards the deductible)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2019 18:28
|
|
