3 ms·

Ignoring any other aspect of your comment, I would highly suggest you to do a bit more research on Hepatitis C before suggesting it only concerns "druggies" and

Ignoring any other aspect of your comment, I would highly suggest you to do a bit more research on Hepatitis C before suggesting it only concerns "druggies" and those who "have sex with weirdos carrying diseases." In fact, a large portion of those currently impacted (and especially those who would now be in an acute condition where this drug would most likely be literally life-saving) contracted the disease through hospital blood transfusions before 1992 [1] when there was not a proper diagnostic test [2]. As such, it is a condition that very much cuts across the population and income levels. [1] "Before 1992, when widespread screening of the blood supply began in the United States, Hepatitis C was also commonly spread through blood transfusions and organ transplants." - http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm [2] Though even that might be disputable per http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/may/26/health.politics http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/may/26/health.politi....

MichaelBurge 10y ago
That does seem like a public health concern. Normally you'd recover damages from a class action lawsuit or similar, but it sounds like it was common practice at the time so nobody was acting negligent. That's just a sad state of affairs. Gilead - or maybe even Congress/local states in cooperation with Gilead - could get a lot of goodwill by offering the cure for free in a one-time deal to people who: * Developed Hepatitis C before 1992. * Had a blood transfusion that likely contributed to the illness * Can't afford to pay for the cure otherwise. To start with, let's say that you make less than $60k/year to qualify. * Don't have insurance that would cover it It seems about as justifiable as when the government steps in to help after a natural disaster.
- refurb 10y ago
  Don't have insurance that would cover it Gilead was doing that.[1] Hell, most drug companies give free drug for patients who are either uninsured or under-insured (their insurer won't pay for it). [1]http://www.gilead.com/responsibility/us-patient-access http://www.gilead.com/responsibility/us-patient-access
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    That raises two questions: * The article is about someone underinsured who went to India. Why couldn't he get free drugs from Gilead instead of needing to jump through some hoops in India? * Wouldn't insurance companies just decline to pay for every expensive treatment? Probably customers won't want to go through prolonged legal battles fighting them for $84000 if they can get the treatment for free. Then again, $1.3 billion in a quarter is only something like 15,500 full-price treatments. The CDC site[1] says there are 3.5 million sufferers. Maybe they expect most people not to pay, so millionaires and some insured will pay. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm#cFAQ21 http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm#cFAQ21
mhalle 10y ago
Absolutely. Possibly millions of people were exposed to HCV through the blood supply before 1992, and many still don't know they were infected. Since HCV may take 20-30 years to show symptoms, it is a potential public health time bomb. We luckily have a tool to defuse it. For example, essentially every hemophiliac was infected with HCV due to dependence on clotting factor, many also with an HIV co-infection. 80% develop chronic liver disease. Those populations aside, "youthful indiscretions" or even chronic addiction are not reasons for (potential) death sentences due to lack of effective treatment.

MichaelBurge 10y ago

That does seem like a public health concern. Normally you'd recover damages from a class action lawsuit or similar, but it sounds like it was common practice at the time so nobody was acting negligent. That's just a sad state of affairs. Gilead - or maybe even Congress/local states in cooperation with Gilead - could get a lot of goodwill by offering the cure for free in a one-time deal to people who: * Developed Hepatitis C before 1992. * Had a blood transfusion that likely contributed to the illness * Can't afford to pay for the cure otherwise. To start with, let's say that you make less than $60k/year to qualify. * Don't have insurance that would cover it It seems about as justifiable as when the government steps in to help after a natural disaster.

refurb 10y ago
Don't have insurance that would cover it Gilead was doing that.[1] Hell, most drug companies give free drug for patients who are either uninsured or under-insured (their insurer won't pay for it). [1]http://www.gilead.com/responsibility/us-patient-access http://www.gilead.com/responsibility/us-patient-access
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  That raises two questions: * The article is about someone underinsured who went to India. Why couldn't he get free drugs from Gilead instead of needing to jump through some hoops in India? * Wouldn't insurance companies just decline to pay for every expensive treatment? Probably customers won't want to go through prolonged legal battles fighting them for $84000 if they can get the treatment for free. Then again, $1.3 billion in a quarter is only something like 15,500 full-price treatments. The CDC site[1] says there are 3.5 million sufferers. Maybe they expect most people not to pay, so millionaires and some insured will pay. [1] http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm#cFAQ21 http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm#cFAQ21

mhalle 10y ago

Absolutely. Possibly millions of people were exposed to HCV through the blood supply before 1992, and many still don't know they were infected. Since HCV may take 20-30 years to show symptoms, it is a potential public health time bomb. We luckily have a tool to defuse it. For example, essentially every hemophiliac was infected with HCV due to dependence on clotting factor, many also with an HIV co-infection. 80% develop chronic liver disease. Those populations aside, "youthful indiscretions" or even chronic addiction are not reasons for (potential) death sentences due to lack of effective treatment.