3 ms·

Based on the very large revenue from foreign patients who come to America to get cancer treatment on their own dime, those patients and their families care abou

Based on the very large revenue from foreign patients who come to America to get cancer treatment on their own dime, those patients and their families care about getting the best treatment.

stjohnswarts 7y ago
You can't use the 0.1% cases to justify the 90% who will get wrecked financially because of major surgery, cancer treatment, etc because it's so expensive. Medical treatment shouldn't be a for profit business, there has to be a better way, and other countries have a better system (in the sense of doing the greatest good for the most people, and not just the 0.1%) than we do and we can copy the best of them as we will be doing it from scratch.
- cptaj 7y ago
  I think it can be for profit but it needs regulation on how much you can bleed patients for. Selling pills for thousands of dollars when they cost you a dime to make is simply exploitative.
  - PorterDuff 7y ago
    What was the NRE on that pill or the hundreds (thousands?) that didn't work at all? OTOH (or the other other hand), I'll bet that you could make a strong argument for stopping new drug development entirely. Simply sell existing drugs for as little as possible. It wouldn't surprise me if most of that research has insanely high marginal cost with little benefit at this point. I'll bet you'd have a healthier public, on average, if this happened.
    - skohan 7y ago
      The cost of medication is not strongly correlated to research costs. In the US most drug prices are set via a single factor: how much will people pay for it? Under this rubric, "cheap" lifesaving drugs are viewed as an arbitrage opportunity. If a lifesaving cancer drug costs $20k per month, then why should a comparable MS treatment be "given away" at $15 per pill? Also a huge percentage of new drug research is not geared toward creating new and interesting treatments: it's based on making small changes to existing molecules to preserve efficacy while making something "new" enough to be patentable.
karlp 7y ago
People do the same in India, Switzerland, Turkey, etc. medical tourism is very common.
- mtberatwork 7y ago
  Many Americans also head down to Mexico for various treatments that are more affordable. https://www.newsweek.com/thousands-americans-cross-border-mexico-affordable-medical-treatment-each-1426943 https://www.newsweek.com/thousands-americans-cross-border-me...
ska 7y ago
> Based on the very large revenue ... It's really not that simple, even if some political talking heads would like you to think so. People travel to the US for some treatments, and people travel from the US for others. It's not even clear if there is a net inflow or net outflow. All this really shows you is that people with the resources to do so are willing to travel for care, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Either for "the best treatment" (which depending on disease and treatment could be many places in Europe, US, Canada, etc.) or for more affordable treatment (cf US residents traveling to Canada for drug renewals).

Based on the very large revenue from foreign patients who come to America to get cancer treatment on their own dime, those patients and their families care about getting the best treatment.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

You can't use the 0.1% cases to justify the 90% who will get wrecked financially because of major surgery, cancer treatment, etc because it's so expensive. Medical treatment shouldn't be a for profit business, there has to be a better way, and other countries have a better system (in the sense of doing the greatest good for the most people, and not just the 0.1%) than we do and we can copy the best of them as we will be doing it from scratch.

cptaj 7y ago
I think it can be for profit but it needs regulation on how much you can bleed patients for. Selling pills for thousands of dollars when they cost you a dime to make is simply exploitative.
- PorterDuff 7y ago
  What was the NRE on that pill or the hundreds (thousands?) that didn't work at all? OTOH (or the other other hand), I'll bet that you could make a strong argument for stopping new drug development entirely. Simply sell existing drugs for as little as possible. It wouldn't surprise me if most of that research has insanely high marginal cost with little benefit at this point. I'll bet you'd have a healthier public, on average, if this happened.
  - skohan 7y ago
    The cost of medication is not strongly correlated to research costs. In the US most drug prices are set via a single factor: how much will people pay for it? Under this rubric, "cheap" lifesaving drugs are viewed as an arbitrage opportunity. If a lifesaving cancer drug costs $20k per month, then why should a comparable MS treatment be "given away" at $15 per pill? Also a huge percentage of new drug research is not geared toward creating new and interesting treatments: it's based on making small changes to existing molecules to preserve efficacy while making something "new" enough to be patentable.

karlp 7y ago

People do the same in India, Switzerland, Turkey, etc. medical tourism is very common.

mtberatwork 7y ago
Many Americans also head down to Mexico for various treatments that are more affordable. https://www.newsweek.com/thousands-americans-cross-border-mexico-affordable-medical-treatment-each-1426943 https://www.newsweek.com/thousands-americans-cross-border-me...

ska 7y ago

> Based on the very large revenue ... It's really not that simple, even if some political talking heads would like you to think so. People travel to the US for some treatments, and people travel from the US for others. It's not even clear if there is a net inflow or net outflow. All this really shows you is that people with the resources to do so are willing to travel for care, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Either for "the best treatment" (which depending on disease and treatment could be many places in Europe, US, Canada, etc.) or for more affordable treatment (cf US residents traveling to Canada for drug renewals).