4 ms·

>So, basically with our stents we can save four times more people's lives, which on a scale of Russia would be tens of thousands of people. So am I correct in

• googamooga 10y ago
  In fact, you're right.
  • erichocean 10y ago
    > because they can't get stents? Why can't a patient just buy a stent from your company (vs. asking the govt. to pay for it) and ask their doctor to "install" it? Is that illegal? (I have no idea how the Russian healthcare system works whatsoever.)
    • smcl 10y ago
      It'd be pretty rare for patients to start investigating the costs of each individual element involved in their treatment wouldn't it?
      • erichocean 10y ago
        He says they literally can't get a stent at all, because the government's budget for the year is gone. If that happens, presumably a Dr. could say "well, you can buy one yourself, it's x $" or whatever. But maybe not, I'm not Russian and don't know what the rules are there.
    • googamooga 10y ago
      It just don't work this way in Russia. Clinics financed directly from the budget for this kind of operations, there is no option in bringing your stent and then get your compensation for it from the state. Of course you may pay for the operation by yourself and don't expect any compensation - but this option is not affordable for 90% of the population.
• belorn 10y ago
  Sweden also has a per-drug global cap on how much state money can be used. It prevents companies in monopoly position from draining the budget by just raising the price regardless of market demand, on the assumption that public health care will be forced by policy to pay it. It is as some has described it, a chicken race until the patent (and patients) has expired.
• CWuestefeld 10y ago
  the Russian healthcare system lets tens of thousands of people die every year because they can't get stents? Isn't that true of any nation's healthcare system? They do have finite budgets, and have to make decisions to draw a line somewhere. This is the point that was blown out of proportion during the Obamacare debates, where the GOP claimed the legislation would involve "death panels". This caricature was hyperbolic enough to backfire, but the fact remains that there's always going to be a decision about where to invest scarce resources.
  • snowwrestler 10y ago
    > Isn't that true of any nation's healthcare system? Not for coronary stents in the U.S. If needed to treat a heart attack, a coronary stent is administered regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Generally speaking, emergency treatment is available to all humans in the U.S. regardless of ability to pay. You might get a bill afterward, but first they will save your life. As for prophylactic coronary stents, the little bit I've read about them suggests that they don't actually keep people from dying, compared to other cheaper and less invasive treatments.
    • CWuestefeld 10y ago
      That's not the point I was trying to make. In America, the coverage provided by Medicaid, Medicare, and private plans under ACA rules, will determine whether to approve or deny a treatment plan based on a number of criteria, which are largely based on a balance between the cost of the treatment versus its likelihood of resulting in additional QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) for the patient. An expensive treatment that's unlikely to help, or even a less-expensive treatment for somebody who's already 90 years old, is likely to be approved. Thus, there are potential treatments that the government will deny. You're right that in America, emergency acute care is going to be provided in any case. This was true before ACA, and in this context may be seen as one way that the American system, as defective as it might be, is still better in many ways than is commonly admitted. (Source: my wife's job used to be Medicare reimbursement, and now centers on "DSH" payments to hospitals, which is essentially reimbursing hospitals for bad debts from indigent care and stuff like we're discussing in this sub-thread)