4 ms·

At $200k for treatment I don't see insurance companies covering this.

by barbacoa 6y ago

gruez 6y ago
Isnt it still cheaper than a lifetime of HIV meds?
- phone8675309 6y ago
  For who? The patient? Probably. The insurance company? No. They make a profit with every transaction, so the smart money is treating chronic conditions, not curing them.
  - lacker 6y ago
    Insurance companies don’t make a profit with every transaction, that’s the drug companies.
  - Stinkosaurus 6y ago
    This is very, very, VERY wrong. Insurance companies bucket people by risk and then charge premiums based on that. The more people use specialist services, the less they make per person. They most definitely do not make money per transaction. They are paying premium money out with each claim. This is one of the reasons they are so obsessed with preventative care. It’s way cheaper and catches shit before it gets more expensive. Insurance companies are highly motivated to treat (and cure) chronic illnesses because those patients cost them so much over the long term.
    - Meandering 6y ago
      This can be seen two ways. Yes, the specialization of service and products for a particular illness has a cost associated with it. But, the cost of specialization is within the field not the direct cost of the insurer. The availability of many treatments/products does not directly relate to cost burden of the insurer as the cost is proportional to customer need. Increasing markets are most likely passed proportionally to the consumer based on risk. The net increased of cost could be seen as a decentralized cost over their entire customer base. The question is... if the insurer is taking a relative percentage for each dollar passed between the insurer and healthcare industry then, maintaining a higher volume of expenses is proportional to their profit. (This would be dependent on a fairly non-elastic demand of people buying insurance). There might also be regulation associated to the maximum amount of profit they can make relative to the actual amount used to cover their customers. If that's the case, then more money spent is probably more money earned.
rasz 6y ago
Looks like original research required 4 years for FDA approval: https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS https://southpark.cc.com/clips/164373/they-found-a-cure-for-aids https://southpark.cc.com/clips/164373/they-found-a-cure-for-... "about $180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream"
vertis 6y ago
Thankfully, the US isn't the only country in the world, and large chunks of the world have socialized medicine.
davidhyde 6y ago
That number is just a little bit of sensationalist journalism, intentional or not. It is reasonable to assume that this is a very manual process right now so that things can be changed easily. Dna sequencing cost $2.4m in the early 90s using the Sanger Sequencing method but today it costs $100 (using a different but as accurate method) because of automation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing

At $200k for treatment I don't see insurance companies covering this.

gruez 6y ago

Isnt it still cheaper than a lifetime of HIV meds?

phone8675309 6y ago
For who? The patient? Probably. The insurance company? No. They make a profit with every transaction, so the smart money is treating chronic conditions, not curing them.
- lacker 6y ago
  Insurance companies don’t make a profit with every transaction, that’s the drug companies.
- Stinkosaurus 6y ago
  This is very, very, VERY wrong. Insurance companies bucket people by risk and then charge premiums based on that. The more people use specialist services, the less they make per person. They most definitely do not make money per transaction. They are paying premium money out with each claim. This is one of the reasons they are so obsessed with preventative care. It’s way cheaper and catches shit before it gets more expensive. Insurance companies are highly motivated to treat (and cure) chronic illnesses because those patients cost them so much over the long term.
  - Meandering 6y ago
    This can be seen two ways. Yes, the specialization of service and products for a particular illness has a cost associated with it. But, the cost of specialization is within the field not the direct cost of the insurer. The availability of many treatments/products does not directly relate to cost burden of the insurer as the cost is proportional to customer need. Increasing markets are most likely passed proportionally to the consumer based on risk. The net increased of cost could be seen as a decentralized cost over their entire customer base. The question is... if the insurer is taking a relative percentage for each dollar passed between the insurer and healthcare industry then, maintaining a higher volume of expenses is proportional to their profit. (This would be dependent on a fairly non-elastic demand of people buying insurance). There might also be regulation associated to the maximum amount of profit they can make relative to the actual amount used to cover their customers. If that's the case, then more money spent is probably more money earned.

rasz 6y ago

Looks like original research required 4 years for FDA approval: https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS https://southpark.cc.com/clips/164373/they-found-a-cure-for-aids https://southpark.cc.com/clips/164373/they-found-a-cure-for-... "about $180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream"

vertis 6y ago

Thankfully, the US isn't the only country in the world, and large chunks of the world have socialized medicine.

davidhyde 6y ago

That number is just a little bit of sensationalist journalism, intentional or not. It is reasonable to assume that this is a very manual process right now so that things can be changed easily. Dna sequencing cost $2.4m in the early 90s using the Sanger Sequencing method but today it costs $100 (using a different but as accurate method) because of automation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing