There is no question that drug costs are astronomically high, and I don’t blame the benefit managers for wanting them reduces. But, while I understand wanting to drive the cost of drugs down, refusing coverage for medically necessary medications is unconscionable.
Thankfully, CVS is not my benefits provider, but I do shop there. Or at least I used to. MS isn’t like allergies or acid reflux. There aren’t that many effective MS drugs and they certainly don’t have OTC versions. If they’re going to pull coverage for Rebif – a medication that works and that many people are on – they won’t be getting any more of my business.
I wonder if anyone did a study between the increasing rise of prescription costs pre and post FDA decision (1995) allowing drug companies to advertise directly to the consumer.
A fundamental requirement for a risk to be insurable is that the economic costs be feasible. Notwithstanding the appearance of greed on the part of big pharma, one must ask if a $50,000 per month script meets the economic feasibility standards.
The insurance industry is partially responsible for such obscene Rx pricing. Perhaps insurers should exclude coverage for ALL medicines, and lets let free market forces bring some sense of reality to prescription pricing.
People who are suffering cannot wait for market forces to change. Some people will die waiting.
How can we continually send billions in aid to other countries when they need medicine, but be willing to let our own citizens suffer and die because of lack of funds? (or go bankrupt to pay to survive?) The US budget office really needs to rebalance where American money is going, and give more back to our own tax-paying people.
Insurance companies cannot stand it when consumers use the product it sells. The drug coverage was a bright idea once upon a time. The market ate it up. Employers jumped at the chance to provide it as a benefit. All was good.
Then the patients started to use the product and the managers of the plans began to see that they were too generous, so the restrictions started coming. After all, it is customary for an insurance company to “exclude” items because the intent was not to cover everything.
The drug companies say they must charge high prices to keep R&D going but they willingly charge drug plans less just to maintain market share. Those who don’t have coverage pays the full amount.
Solution: ELIMINATE ALL HEALTH AND DRUG COVERAGE. LET THE PROVIDERS COMPETE HEAD TO HEAD FOR THE PATIENTS. There’s no healthcare crises! Everywhere hospitals and clinics are expanding. Why? Because money is being made hand over fist. Taking care of the stockholders! Get rid of the insurance and watch what happens.
It’s hard to shop around for the most competitive care when you’re having acute appendicitis or a heart attack. If we got rid of insurance, even more people would be going bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills. That’s not a reasonable solution.
When I was a child, there was no health insurance except major medical to cover when one was placed in the hospital. As the years rolled by, insurance companies started to add “benefits” to attract business. The government became involved with medicare and medicaid too. Go back and check, you will see health care costs start to rise in the early 70’s, which just happens to correspond with the introduction of government funded health insurance.
Today’s plans is cradle to grave because politicians have mandated that insurers must provide this or that. Yet no one goes out of business. Billions are being made by the health mafia, yet everyone fears the government involvement. Better that a someone with a high school diploma is reading from a manual to make coverage determinations! Get rid of it and the prices will drop like rocks.
You will find care for your acute appendicitus, just as many did back once upon a time.
I don’t blame anyone for being frugal, but in the case of prescription drugs the patients care has to be the number one goal. I don’t see how requiring a person to have “severe liver damage” before approving a drug that has a 90% cure rate can possibly have the patients best interest in mind. When it becomes saving money while people suffer and/or die then I don’t see how it can ever be acceptable.
There is no question that drug costs are astronomically high, and I don’t blame the benefit managers for wanting them reduces. But, while I understand wanting to drive the cost of drugs down, refusing coverage for medically necessary medications is unconscionable.
Thankfully, CVS is not my benefits provider, but I do shop there. Or at least I used to. MS isn’t like allergies or acid reflux. There aren’t that many effective MS drugs and they certainly don’t have OTC versions. If they’re going to pull coverage for Rebif – a medication that works and that many people are on – they won’t be getting any more of my business.
I wonder if anyone did a study between the increasing rise of prescription costs pre and post FDA decision (1995) allowing drug companies to advertise directly to the consumer.
A fundamental requirement for a risk to be insurable is that the economic costs be feasible. Notwithstanding the appearance of greed on the part of big pharma, one must ask if a $50,000 per month script meets the economic feasibility standards.
The insurance industry is partially responsible for such obscene Rx pricing. Perhaps insurers should exclude coverage for ALL medicines, and lets let free market forces bring some sense of reality to prescription pricing.
People who are suffering cannot wait for market forces to change. Some people will die waiting.
How can we continually send billions in aid to other countries when they need medicine, but be willing to let our own citizens suffer and die because of lack of funds? (or go bankrupt to pay to survive?) The US budget office really needs to rebalance where American money is going, and give more back to our own tax-paying people.
Hallelujah, Libra! I couldn’t agree more!
Insurance companies cannot stand it when consumers use the product it sells. The drug coverage was a bright idea once upon a time. The market ate it up. Employers jumped at the chance to provide it as a benefit. All was good.
Then the patients started to use the product and the managers of the plans began to see that they were too generous, so the restrictions started coming. After all, it is customary for an insurance company to “exclude” items because the intent was not to cover everything.
The drug companies say they must charge high prices to keep R&D going but they willingly charge drug plans less just to maintain market share. Those who don’t have coverage pays the full amount.
Solution: ELIMINATE ALL HEALTH AND DRUG COVERAGE. LET THE PROVIDERS COMPETE HEAD TO HEAD FOR THE PATIENTS. There’s no healthcare crises! Everywhere hospitals and clinics are expanding. Why? Because money is being made hand over fist. Taking care of the stockholders! Get rid of the insurance and watch what happens.
It’s hard to shop around for the most competitive care when you’re having acute appendicitis or a heart attack. If we got rid of insurance, even more people would be going bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills. That’s not a reasonable solution.
When I was a child, there was no health insurance except major medical to cover when one was placed in the hospital. As the years rolled by, insurance companies started to add “benefits” to attract business. The government became involved with medicare and medicaid too. Go back and check, you will see health care costs start to rise in the early 70’s, which just happens to correspond with the introduction of government funded health insurance.
Today’s plans is cradle to grave because politicians have mandated that insurers must provide this or that. Yet no one goes out of business. Billions are being made by the health mafia, yet everyone fears the government involvement. Better that a someone with a high school diploma is reading from a manual to make coverage determinations! Get rid of it and the prices will drop like rocks.
You will find care for your acute appendicitus, just as many did back once upon a time.
I don’t blame anyone for being frugal, but in the case of prescription drugs the patients care has to be the number one goal. I don’t see how requiring a person to have “severe liver damage” before approving a drug that has a 90% cure rate can possibly have the patients best interest in mind. When it becomes saving money while people suffer and/or die then I don’t see how it can ever be acceptable.