4 ms·

Last year, Minnesota passed the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act, which requires the major insulin manufacturers to provide 30-day emergency supplies of ins

Last year, Minnesota passed the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act, which requires the major insulin manufacturers to provide 30-day emergency supplies of insulin for no more than $35, and 90-day supplies for no more than $50, for anyone meeting the program guidelines[0]. The law was modelled around the companies’ existing patient assistance programs, and despite assurances from industry reps, PhRMA sued the state anyway just hours before the law was due to take effect[1]. This spring, their lawsuit was dismissed[2]. This law isn’t a great solution if you think that insulin should be free to all, but it is at least something that other states can use as a model to try to help their citizens access to cheaper, high-quality insulin. [0] https://www.mninsulin.org/ https://www.mninsulin.org/ [1] https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2020/07/why-so-many-people-at-the-capitol-are-so-pissed-off-about-the-drug-industrys-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-new-emergency-insulin-program/ https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/2020/07/why-so-man... [2] https://www.twincities.com/2021/03/16/alec-smith-insulin-affordability-mn-lawsuit-phrma/ https://www.twincities.com/2021/03/16/alec-smith-insulin-aff...

arcticbull 5y ago
This is the weirdest socialized medicine I've ever seen, "offer valid only for COVID tests, COVID vaccines and Insulin (terms and conditions apply)." This kind of targeted quick fix is kind of the epitome of the little patches you put on a leaky kids swimming pool.
- xtracto 5y ago
  Just yesterday my wife and I were watching "last week tonight" episode on US health share orgs. (Like a health insurance, but religious and unregulated). My impression was: The crazy hoops and loops that Americans will go through for healthcare just to NOT implement a sensible social healthcare program.
  - gunapologist99 5y ago
    I certainly understand that reaction, but I don't think it's crazy. I just joined one. My primary care physician recommended it. It's about 28% the cost of the regulated ACA plans in my area for my size family. Read that number again. And, it covers everything (except no pre-existing conditions) except for things like cosmetic surgery. The list of things that the ACA plan didn't cover at all was confusing and pretty lengthy, and it had a $9k deductible (or more, many of the cheaper plans had $15k deductibles) per family member, and double that (two family member's worth) for a max family deductible. To me, that is crazy. And, for the cheaper plans, they required coinsurance, so if I had a disease that would cost $200k, I would owe $67k. Most amazingly, there's no deductible except for the $400-per-visit deductible. (There's no free maintenance or co-pays or anything like that.) Everything is covered after the $400-per-visit deductible, and there's virtually no maximum. Go to the ER, max of $400. Go for a checkup, probably pay it yourself (unless it exceeds $400). (One could argue that they should cover an annual checkup, but if it was just a matter of adding $150/year to everyone's plan, what's the point; that's an arbitrary amount that can be budgeted in once you know to expect it. Since it's people of that religion only, some built-in pre-qualification occurs to eliminate people who would just abuse the system.) These health share non-profit organizations have paid out billions by cooperating and coordinating among their members, and you negotiate with the hospital directly as a cash patient and make your own choice of care and providers. It's somewhat akin to how a credit union is dissimilar to a bank. I personally find the idea fascinating and certainly prefer it to forced socialized medicine.
    - slumdev 5y ago
      > $400-per-visit deductible $400 is pretty close to the cost of an office visit, physical exam, metabolic panel, lipid panel, and EKG, which is what a primary care doc is going to order annually on something like 90% of Americans after a certain age. It shifts the expense of routine care and checkups to the patient. If you view insurance as indemnification against unexpected loss, it shouldn't be paying for expected, routine costs.
      - srtjstjsj 5y ago
        It should because those routine costs prevent disasters. That's also why car insurance pays you to install LoJack and homeowners insurance pays you to install fire alarms.
        gunapologist99 5y ago
        > That's also why car insurance pays you to install LoJack and homeowners insurance pays you to install fire alarms. But this isn't true -- at least for any car insurance or homeowners insurance that I've purchased. You often receive a small discount, but the discount alone doesn't cover the cost of purchase/maintenance.
        slumdev 5y ago
        Those are small discounts against a large premium. A health insurance analogy would be: Customer A pays $100/mo because he gets an annual checkup and takes the medicines the doctor prescribes. Customer B pays $200/mo because he hasn't seen a doctor since college. Customer B could reduce his total out of pocket by $800 per year if he paid for the $400 visit.
    - lolc 5y ago
      Diabetes is a pre-existing condition for many. I'm lucky I live in a place where I can change insurer, despite my diabetes.
    - fra 5y ago
      > And, it covers everything (except no pre-existing conditions) You're foisting the sick and the elderly onto government programs, and patting yourself on the back for pulling yourself by your bootstraps.
  - srtjstjsj 5y ago
    Uh, the people building healthshare programs are building sensible healthcare programs. They aren't the ones running government.
    - xtracto 5y ago
      Right but my main point is that those things look A Lot like social healthcare, except for the name. It's like the stuff we did when we were kids: "I'll do it because I want to, but not because you tell me to". Things like the NHS or Germany health system (both I've experienced) are pretty good. But hod forbids the US implements those /socialist/ systems.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        So in Canada, while the public system is 'single payer' - private healthcare and coverage isn't illegal. The public system is structured so that it cannot subsidize private care. Turns out, nobody wants private care so it just doesn't exist. I mean, why would they? You get sick, you go to the hospital, you get better and you leave. Bankruptcy not required.

arcticbull 5y ago

This is the weirdest socialized medicine I've ever seen, "offer valid only for COVID tests, COVID vaccines and Insulin (terms and conditions apply)." This kind of targeted quick fix is kind of the epitome of the little patches you put on a leaky kids swimming pool.

xtracto 5y ago
Just yesterday my wife and I were watching "last week tonight" episode on US health share orgs. (Like a health insurance, but religious and unregulated). My impression was: The crazy hoops and loops that Americans will go through for healthcare just to NOT implement a sensible social healthcare program.
- gunapologist99 5y ago
  I certainly understand that reaction, but I don't think it's crazy. I just joined one. My primary care physician recommended it. It's about 28% the cost of the regulated ACA plans in my area for my size family. Read that number again. And, it covers everything (except no pre-existing conditions) except for things like cosmetic surgery. The list of things that the ACA plan didn't cover at all was confusing and pretty lengthy, and it had a $9k deductible (or more, many of the cheaper plans had $15k deductibles) per family member, and double that (two family member's worth) for a max family deductible. To me, that is crazy. And, for the cheaper plans, they required coinsurance, so if I had a disease that would cost $200k, I would owe $67k. Most amazingly, there's no deductible except for the $400-per-visit deductible. (There's no free maintenance or co-pays or anything like that.) Everything is covered after the $400-per-visit deductible, and there's virtually no maximum. Go to the ER, max of $400. Go for a checkup, probably pay it yourself (unless it exceeds $400). (One could argue that they should cover an annual checkup, but if it was just a matter of adding $150/year to everyone's plan, what's the point; that's an arbitrary amount that can be budgeted in once you know to expect it. Since it's people of that religion only, some built-in pre-qualification occurs to eliminate people who would just abuse the system.) These health share non-profit organizations have paid out billions by cooperating and coordinating among their members, and you negotiate with the hospital directly as a cash patient and make your own choice of care and providers. It's somewhat akin to how a credit union is dissimilar to a bank. I personally find the idea fascinating and certainly prefer it to forced socialized medicine.
  - slumdev 5y ago
    > $400-per-visit deductible $400 is pretty close to the cost of an office visit, physical exam, metabolic panel, lipid panel, and EKG, which is what a primary care doc is going to order annually on something like 90% of Americans after a certain age. It shifts the expense of routine care and checkups to the patient. If you view insurance as indemnification against unexpected loss, it shouldn't be paying for expected, routine costs.
    - srtjstjsj 5y ago
      It should because those routine costs prevent disasters. That's also why car insurance pays you to install LoJack and homeowners insurance pays you to install fire alarms.
      - gunapologist99 5y ago
        > That's also why car insurance pays you to install LoJack and homeowners insurance pays you to install fire alarms. But this isn't true -- at least for any car insurance or homeowners insurance that I've purchased. You often receive a small discount, but the discount alone doesn't cover the cost of purchase/maintenance.
      - slumdev 5y ago
        Those are small discounts against a large premium. A health insurance analogy would be: Customer A pays $100/mo because he gets an annual checkup and takes the medicines the doctor prescribes. Customer B pays $200/mo because he hasn't seen a doctor since college. Customer B could reduce his total out of pocket by $800 per year if he paid for the $400 visit.
  - lolc 5y ago
    Diabetes is a pre-existing condition for many. I'm lucky I live in a place where I can change insurer, despite my diabetes.
  - fra 5y ago
    > And, it covers everything (except no pre-existing conditions) You're foisting the sick and the elderly onto government programs, and patting yourself on the back for pulling yourself by your bootstraps.
- srtjstjsj 5y ago
  Uh, the people building healthshare programs are building sensible healthcare programs. They aren't the ones running government.
  - xtracto 5y ago
    Right but my main point is that those things look A Lot like social healthcare, except for the name. It's like the stuff we did when we were kids: "I'll do it because I want to, but not because you tell me to". Things like the NHS or Germany health system (both I've experienced) are pretty good. But hod forbids the US implements those /socialist/ systems.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      So in Canada, while the public system is 'single payer' - private healthcare and coverage isn't illegal. The public system is structured so that it cannot subsidize private care. Turns out, nobody wants private care so it just doesn't exist. I mean, why would they? You get sick, you go to the hospital, you get better and you leave. Bankruptcy not required.