<p>That’s because so many countries do not honor intellectual property rights. Have you noticed the state of pharma of late? Nonstop layoffs. Moving clinical trials, R&D, manufacturing to Eastern Europe and Asia. Why? Because FDA will not approve drugs. Congress restricted patent life of drugs significantly in the 80s. Why stay? Their only chance of survival is to move their companies to emerging markets and try to make the case that medical innovation is worth supporting.</p>
<p>Really cheap medications come at a price. You will have lots and lots of generic versions of old drugs soon. Very, very few new and innovative drugs. Are we happy yet? Cheap makes us happy, right?</p>
<p>That would have been the public option, which was really, finally on the table for a brief period. Then Big Insurance and their minions fired up the misinformation machine and succeeded, once again, in scaring the bejeezus out of that segment of the public which doesn’t read past bumper stickers. Remember “death panels”?</p>
<p>Honestly no clue about other countries but they are much cheaper in Canada because the govt negotiates with pharma directly and it has nothing to do with violating intellectual property. </p>
<p>Aw, c’mon, starbright - you’re ruining a perfectly good excuse for big business gouging the American public!!!</p>
<p>American business runs on excuses. I swear, the one seriously recession-resistant, growth industry in America these days is generating plausible narratives to explain why mega-corporations have to be allowed to sift the last few dimes out of John Q. Public’s pockets.</p>
<p>And give American ingenuity some props - they’ve gotten really, really good at it.</p>
<p>"^ kaiser is a nonprofit health insurer and very driven by a particular ideological perspective. I once worked for Kaiser. Kaiser would benefit (ie, “profit”) enormously if we socialized medicine. "</p>
<p>starbright - If you think about the whole concept that “govt negotiates directly with pharma” I think you will start to see what that means for the pharma industry. Absolutely no leverage on price. And if you think that’s a terrific model than have a look at whats going down in UK right now.</p>
<p>If it’s cheap it’s not gonna be new technology and it’s not going to be the best therapy out there. If it all stays cheap for very long there will be no more innovation.</p>
<p>And for a lot of people that is good. They want their healthcare to be cheap above all else.</p>
<p>New or expensive technology is not always better. For example, some new expensive drugs may be highly effective in specific situations, but less effective than old inexpensive drugs in other situations (in some cases, the new expensive drug has more undesired effects than the old inexpensive drug, so the new expensive drug is used only for those who find the old inexpensive drug ineffective). And, for some common conditions like hypertension, diabetes, obesity, etc., old fashioned diet and exercise can work better than any drugs.</p>
<p>Since I posted a few days ago, I’ve received notice that our family’s premium (for $5,000/person deductible, the cheapest policy available) is increasing from $1,039/month to $1,159/month. And some medications are going from a $50/month copay to half of the actual cost of the drug (up to $200/month). A 11.5% increase. Ack.</p>
<p>It’s the deductible for any covered expense, other than prescription drugs. At least the copay for doctor’s visits is $30, but there are also tests and other services associated with the visits that fall under the deductible.</p>
<p>My son needed to attend a support group at a local hospital. It was over $200/session, and they wanted him to go twice a week, for a couple of months. He ended up not going the entire time, but it still cost a ridiculous amount of money.</p>
<p>If you stop and think a moment what pharma’s investment in promotion means I think perhaps you might connect the finite and brief patent life to highly expensive drug development to the need for these companies to make back their investment quickly. Hence, promotion expenditures.</p>
<p>That study was debunked, btw. I will hunt down links.</p>
<p>Academic studies are always coming out trying to discredit the private sector involvement in healthcare. Actually, just this past week I believe a pretty interesting piece came out in Science looking at the dismal rate of replicability in academic research findings.</p>
<p>We need both – well funded academic and private sector research going on. We need to spend on developing better therapies that can keep us out of surgery, out of the hospital, and thereby avoiding the really big gigantic health costs.</p>
<p>ML, wow, that is expensive. We have a PPO, but can go outside the PPO (you need to pay more, but I forgot the details since we have not had to do this). Our sons have been able to stay within the PPO and see wonderful doctors while OOS without a problem. We pay 1550 per month. We have a $25 copay for primary health care doctors but a $50 for specialists. I don’t pay anything for lab, or xrays as long as there is a RX from the in network MD. We have a 1,000 deductible for a hospitalization per person (this might be capped after 2 family members are hospitalized, but I am not even sure). We pay $10 for generics, and $50 for the expensive drugs that don’t have a generic (unless they are at certain price point and then it might be $25). We do have a deductible for Rxs per person if we use non-generics (I think it is about $100-150 per person and usually 2 out of 4 us need to pay it). We have 4 people covered on this policy. I believe that we are paying about 4600 more than you are in premiums though.</p>
<p>Editing to say that this premium is set until next November.</p>
<p>Ethics in pharmaceutical advertising.
Lober CW.
Source</p>
<p>"Department of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Abstract</p>
<p>Pharmaceutical manufacturing is one of the most financially lucrative industries in America due, in part, to massive marketing and advertising. The content of many symposia and medical journals as well as physician prescribing decisions seems to be influenced by the promotional efforts of pharmaceutical companies. In an effort to increase sales, the industry now advertises directly to the public. The role of the Food and Drug Administration and ethical standards established by medical organizations are discussed."</p>
<p>ML, also for mental health, my insurance changed along the way so I am not sure, but I do know that I would only need to pay either $50 per visit OR the insurance company’s prenegotiated rate if we stayed in network, which for a support group I know would come in under the $50. The catch is that the insurance does limit the number of visits per year (but I think, not sure, that it is per diagnosis). The number of visits per year is still fairly generous unless one needs a lot of visits within the year under the same diagnosis. I believe my insurance would cover what would amount to one visit every other week per diagnosis if approved. Also, neurologists would not fall under mental health. They just would cost $50 per visit and visits are not capped.</p>
<p>northeastmom, the problem I ran into, both in Texas and in Maine, is that it is impossible to find a good psychiatrist in-network. I tried! The one guy I found who was taking patients had been disciplined for having an unethical relationship with a patient (not sexual, but the doctor let the patient move into his house). I get a little back from Anthem for the visits, but I pay about $140 for each one-hour visit.</p>
<p>The out-of-network deductible is $10,000/person.</p>