Universal Healthcare...an idea whose time has come??

[scooterbug44]

Scooterbug,
How do you suggest the FDA implements stricter controls, performs more tests and reduces the time that they do so? Thanks.

$$$$$ is the first general answer. I'm constantly frustrated by how we have limitless coffers when it comes to spending money on foreign aid and military actions, but are constantly trimming programs that benefit our own citizens.

I also suggest they expand the range of subjects in ther trials - I think a lot of the "surprise" complications and side effects are because of the extremely limited scope of test subjects. I also wouldn't mind if drugs went into a 2nd phase where they were only approved for use on volunteer subjects (with a wider range of criteria than the current test pool) after getting a preliminary approval.

The time it takes for drugs to get approved is frustrating, but I don't see a way to change that without putting more lives at risk.

 

[6thGen]

$$$$$ is the first general answer. I'm constantly frustrated by how we have limitless coffers when it comes to spending money on foreign aid and military actions, but are constantly trimming programs that benefit our own citizens.

I've repeated the argument that the FDA doesn't offer a net benefit to US citizens. But I also believe that the "promote the general welfare" clause is constantly being taken out of context.

I also suggest they expand the range of subjects in ther trials - I think a lot of the "surprise" complications and side effects are because of the extremely limited scope of test subjects. I also wouldn't mind if drugs went into a 2nd phase where they were only approved for use on volunteer subjects (with a wider range of criteria than the current test pool) after getting a preliminary approval.

That further proves what I said, that drug companies work towards passing the tests. If there are more tests, they will work to pass those test. If they are held accountable on their own accord, without a safety net, they have more incentive to make sure the drug passes on every level.

The time it takes for drugs to get approved is frustrating, but I don't see a way to change that without putting more lives at risk.

I do. But you believe the contrary.

 

[scooterbug44]

I do. But you believe the contrary.

Don't tell me what I believe. Thanks.

 

[6thGen]

Don't tell me what I believe. Thanks.

Sheesh. I'll let you tell you.

Scooterbug,
Please see the following sentence as to what Scooterbug said Scooterbug believes.

"My vote is that (the FDA) have stricter controls and more varied trials and reduce the number of years the drug companies get a patent fro (sic)." - Scooterbug

 

[30A Skunkape]

Sorry, I had other posters FDA comments in my head and got confused. My vote is that they have stricter controls and more varied trials and reduce the number of years the drug companies get a patent fro.

The law you mention sounds great ..... but doesn't seem very all encompassing. Some of the examples other people posted obviously do not fit within that definition - lady who got divorced etc. Do you know how it works w/ people who get dropped from their plans? What about preexisting or hereditary conditions?

I have no idea what plan my grandmother is on (assume Medicare because there was a whole issue w/ part D), just know that it is practically a part time job for my mother to wade through the bureacracy and red tape to get her care and treatment. She is constantly on the phone trying to get explanations, fix errors, reconcile billing and ensure that Gma is actually getting care & the correct meds. It is a frequent occurrence for her to drive several hours each way so she can be present for appointments and be fielding calls even while on vacation to get a straight answer from a dr's office or the gov't. My Gma also has some of her children living w/ her who can drive her to appointments and help her w/ daily care. She does have a variety of health problems - mainly because she's in her mid 90s - but I wouldn't consider her an extreme or atypical case. She has never smoked, doesn't drink, and has had yearly checkups/preventative care, yet prepaying her funeral is just one of the "creative" ways my mother has found to make it affordable/possible for her to get care. I can only imagine what an elderly person w/o these resources goes through.

One friend has migraines - her prescription for 1 pill is $125. Another friend buys drugs from Canada because they are so expensive in the US and is considering a summer job at Starbucks because 1) they provide health insurance 2) her health insurance costs as a graduate student went up 40% after the deadline when the federal gov't requires you submit financial aid paperwork for the academic year. These are people WITH insurance!

I have never paid just $35 for an office visit or $4 for a prescription, and as previously stated I think I am in the upper tiers of health care/coverage. I think the Walmart plan is a great idea and a wonderful first step, but I doubt most people's specialized drugs fit in their "300 common prescriptions". I assume those medications that have been around a long time for minor chronic problems - antibiotics, asthma, birth control, allergy meds, pain pills etc.

I think it is both appropriate and fair that highly specialized/trained people make a good living, just wasn't buying the argument that folks who perform $80K surgeries are scraping by because of the parsimonious fees they receive. I applaud the fact that they are doing these types of surgeries, esp at reduced or pro bono rates .......especially since I'm sure most insurance companies/the government wouldn't cover the Walmart version.

I am here to tell you that the Wal-Mart formulary is very good. There is a pulmonologist/ICU/renal doc that may be the most brilliant man I have ever encountered who puts it so well "New medicines are new, and new isn't always better". If you just march into the pharmacy with your Rx, expect to pay top dollar. Advocate for yourself-print out the Wal-Mart formulary and ASK if there is any reason you shouldn't be on those meds instead of the latest and greatest thing advertised on TV.

 

[scooterbug44]

I said to reduce the amount of time the drug companies get patents "fro" ....... meaning generics could be available sooner, not the time it takes for the FDA to approve the drug. Pay less attention to minor typos and more to the actual content. Thanks.

 

[6thGen]

I said to reduce the amount of time the drug companies get patents "fro" ....... meaning generics could be available sooner, not the time it takes for the FDA to approve the drug. Pay less attention to minor typos and more to the actual content. Thanks.

So if I understand the Scooterbug plan correctly - it is to impose more regulation on drug makers and offer them less time to enjoy sole benefit of their product. Is that right?

If I'm a drug company, my answer is why the hell even bother?

 

[scooterbug44]

I am here to tell you that the Wal-Mart formulary is very good. There is a pulmonologist/ICU/renal doc that may be the most brilliant man I have ever encountered who puts it so well "New medicines are new, and new isn't always better". If you just march into the pharmacy with your Rx, expect to pay top dollar. Advocate for yourself-print out the Wal-Mart formulary and ASK if there is any reason you shouldn't be on those meds instead of the latest and greatest thing advertised on TV.

I'm not saying new is better, just that the prescriptions available at Walmart for $4 are probably not the ones that are $$$ and are feuling the debates about the ridiculous cost of prescription drugs, so that while it's a great idea and functional for the types of ailments I listed as examples it probably isn't helping with the high ticket or specialized items. I'm all about generic meds and want stuff available as a generic sooner!

 

[6thGen]

I'm not saying new is better, just that the prescriptions available at Walmart for $4 are probably not the ones that are $$$ and are feuling the debates about the ridiculous cost of prescription drugs, so that while it's a great idea and functional for the types of ailments I listed as examples it probably isn't helping with the high ticket or specialized items. I'm all about generic meds and want stuff available as a generic sooner!

What incentive to drug makers have to come up with new treatments if we went with your plan of higher cost and less time to profit per drug? On a side note, what you don't realize, is that if you shorten the time that companies are allowed to recover their R&D costs, you'll push the cost of prescription drugs higher. If you want to stick with generics, you do that, there are plenty to choose from, but don't force it on the rest of the marketplace who is willing to reward innovation rather than punish it.

 

[scooterbug44]

What incentive to drug makers have to come up with new treatments if we went with your plan of higher cost and less time to profit per drug? On a side note, what you don't realize, is that if you shorten the time that companies are allowed to recover their R&D costs, you'll push the cost of prescription drugs higher. If you want to stick with generics, you do that, there are plenty to choose from, but don't force it on the rest of the marketplace who is willing to reward innovation rather than punish it.

They have the same incentive they had before - profit - just a shorter time period of monopoly on it. Perhaps a compromise could be that the government could use generics or get a major discount while the general public still pays for name brand.

I realize that developing and testing new drugs is a costly process, but would love to hear stats from someone in the know (skunk, rapunzel) as to the profit margin/marketing costs for drugs. The stories of insane marketing that I hear from local pharmaceutical reps are ridonkulous.

Providing a lower cost option sooner is not forcing something on the marketplace. If folks who can afford it don't want the generic, they don't have to choose it. Isn't that the whole idea of the free market system you're always touting?