5 ms·

What are you talking about? Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is, not individual patients

What are you talking about? Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is, not individual patients who can't pay. That requires FDA approval. Historically iirc compassionate use distributions were free, and it is likely that will continue to be the case because the amount of money companies can make off of individual patients is rounding error relative to bringing a product to market and getting widespread approval for reimbursement. Also, the whole point is that these people are not guinea pigs. They are allowed access to promising therapies in late stage clinical trials in the hopes that they will help them, not just random investigational compounds. Let's remember that these requests would require physician approval. The result of blocking this is to say that dying patients should just die, tough shit, but hey at least they will die with more money right?

openasocket 8y ago
> Also, the whole point is that these people are not guinea pigs. They are allowed access to promising therapies in late stage clinical trials in the hopes that they will help them, not just random investigational compounds I'm not positive, but I think this only requires drugs to have passed Phase I clinical trials. And that, according to the article, NurOwn's Phase II trials showed it was unable to slow the progression of ALS compared to a placebo.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is, not individual patients. I mean that's wrong because the article directly states that they're charging lots of money for this therapy so that they have an incentive. If 'the real money' was in insurance at scale, why does NurOwn require an additional monetary incentive beyond free test cases? Obviously they care about being able to bill individual patients. Especially in right-to-try cases because the type of person willing to pay to try an experimental therapy is often the type of person who would hand you everything they own. >The result of blocking this is to say that dying patients should just die, tough shit, but hey at least they will die with more money right? Most of these people are going to die anyway and many will now die experiencing side effects they had no way of knowing about. They'll also leave their families nothing. Marketizing healthcare has already raced us to an ugly bottom. This law creates a new and even lower bottom to how pharmaceutical companies are able to take advantage of some of the most desperate people our society has. That's not a good thing.
scott_s 8y ago
> Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is, not individual patients who can't pay. I agree. But the problem with this new policy is that it incentivizes scammers which are new actors who do not care about trying to get legit patients at scale.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jonhendry18 8y ago
"Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is" Small-scale quackery scams can be highly profitable even if there's never any move to large scale production. It doesn't cost much to run a clinic giving coffee enemas, but you can charge an arm and a leg. At that rate a few patients a year can keep you riding in Ferraris. "hey at least they will die with more money right?" Their kids might appreciate not being left homeless by an unethical fraud.
- beavisthegenius 8y ago
  Their kids should get jobs if they want money.
  - jonhendry18 8y ago
    Their kids might be too young.
    - beavisthegenius 8y ago
      Too bad. That's the parent's decision.
DanBC 8y ago
> They are allowed access to promising therapies in late stage clinical trials in the hopes that they will help them These drugs would be similar to or worse than drugs available on the Cancer Drugs Fund in England. We found that they i) are very expensive and ii) had no menaingful benefit. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 On top of that you've got to factor in unpleasant side effects. There are better ways to die than spending all your money on meds that make you feel terrible and don't provide any benefit.

openasocket 8y ago

> Also, the whole point is that these people are not guinea pigs. They are allowed access to promising therapies in late stage clinical trials in the hopes that they will help them, not just random investigational compounds I'm not positive, but I think this only requires drugs to have passed Phase I clinical trials. And that, according to the article, NurOwn's Phase II trials showed it was unable to slow the progression of ALS compared to a placebo.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is, not individual patients. I mean that's wrong because the article directly states that they're charging lots of money for this therapy so that they have an incentive. If 'the real money' was in insurance at scale, why does NurOwn require an additional monetary incentive beyond free test cases? Obviously they care about being able to bill individual patients. Especially in right-to-try cases because the type of person willing to pay to try an experimental therapy is often the type of person who would hand you everything they own. >The result of blocking this is to say that dying patients should just die, tough shit, but hey at least they will die with more money right? Most of these people are going to die anyway and many will now die experiencing side effects they had no way of knowing about. They'll also leave their families nothing. Marketizing healthcare has already raced us to an ugly bottom. This law creates a new and even lower bottom to how pharmaceutical companies are able to take advantage of some of the most desperate people our society has. That's not a good thing.

scott_s 8y ago

> Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is, not individual patients who can't pay. I agree. But the problem with this new policy is that it incentivizes scammers which are new actors who do not care about trying to get legit patients at scale.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jonhendry18 8y ago

"Pharma conpanies want therapies to work because billing insurance companies at scale is where the money is" Small-scale quackery scams can be highly profitable even if there's never any move to large scale production. It doesn't cost much to run a clinic giving coffee enemas, but you can charge an arm and a leg. At that rate a few patients a year can keep you riding in Ferraris. "hey at least they will die with more money right?" Their kids might appreciate not being left homeless by an unethical fraud.

beavisthegenius 8y ago
Their kids should get jobs if they want money.
- jonhendry18 8y ago
  Their kids might be too young.
  - beavisthegenius 8y ago
    Too bad. That's the parent's decision.

DanBC 8y ago

> They are allowed access to promising therapies in late stage clinical trials in the hopes that they will help them These drugs would be similar to or worse than drugs available on the Cancer Drugs Fund in England. We found that they i) are very expensive and ii) had no menaingful benefit. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2097 On top of that you've got to factor in unpleasant side effects. There are better ways to die than spending all your money on meds that make you feel terrible and don't provide any benefit.