Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More than anything this is age and prognosis dependent. Then discussions with docs, second opinions, and then insurance coverage.
In many cases these very expensive but rarely used treatments can be had at huge discount or for free by the indigent. If it is worthwhile treatment, the drug or tech company wants to get their successful new stuff out there so that can lead to broader acceptance by docs, hospitals, insurance and then of course hoping for more profits through more volume down the road.
The problem with rare diseases....there isn't very much volume.
Therfore the only way to cover cost is to sell it for a large amount.
The US could do what Singapore does, which is to give everyone a healthcare budget, basically the max amount you have to spend any way you want, but only for your own healthcare. It is a lifetime max and it is transferable. A lot of people cut back on themselves in order to give their allotment to their family. It puts everyone in control of how they want to spend their healthcare dollars. If there is rationing, you are the one doing it.
So if you have a family member with an expensive illness, you figure out how to pay it with your own allotment and perhaps other family members chip in. But the national system does not go broke paying for a lot of very expensive diseases.
"Trikafta took three decades to develop. Scientists first isolated the genetic defect that causes cystic fibrosis in 1989. Vertex, which developed the treatment, has set a high price tag for Trikafta, at $311,000. But a treatment that can extend life expectancy for cystic fibrosis patients by decades, while also improving the quality of life for my daughter and patients like her, is still worthwhile even at that price."
At what point do we say a course of treatment is too expensive? In this article a woman is saying "it's worth it" to spend 311,000 dollars PER YEAR to treat her daughters illness. If this girl lives the average age of cystic fibrosis sufferers (44 years) the tab is going to be 12 million and change. If drug is actually effective she may live to 70 with a tab of over 20 million dollars.
Sure its "worth it" if others are paying for it. Now I know why I am paying close to 10,000 dollars per year BEFORE my 8,250 dollar deductible.
Every person born is terminal. Is it reasonable to expect others to finance a "life extension" through exorbitant insurance premiums? At what point do we say no?
No amount of money is too much. As much money as it takes to keep them alive must be spent. If all life is precious as a certain group of people love to pontificate, then we’ve gotta break all budgets to keep any sick person alive.
That's how insurance works. The vast majority of the beneficiaries spend less than the coverage, probably far less. And a small percentage have very expensive short-term or long-term conditions. What Medicaid, Medicare, or HMOs don't pay are borne by other payors. Group plans shft costs onto individual plans. The argument for single payor is that insurance companies can't shift costs since it is one large group plan.
Your math is wrong. You're counting all the other programs and also leaving out defense's share of the interest expense. Defense is about 4 times the size of the Medicaid program. Total healthcare spending in the economy is larger than military spending by about 1/3rd.
I don't see how your math is correct. Even if you include all foreign economic and military aid along with the VA benefits we are spending 20% more on everything in the defense category than we do on Medicaid. (Not 4x) . In order to be spending 4x for military spending it would have to be 3.2 trillion dollars in defense spending.
Military Defense spending = 737 billion
Vendor payments medical (Medicaid) = 800 billion including federal, state and local spending.
If a very expensive drug can restore a person to the point where they s/he will be able to have a job and live independently as an adult, then I am in favor of it, no matter what the cost.
What I object to are people who insist on preserving life who will never have even close to a normal life.
So, yes, at the risk of being labeled some kind of monster, I do think that there should be some kind of "panel" to make these decisions, just as there are (I think) panels to decide whether someone should be placed on an organ recipient list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
