4 ms·
Two thoughts about these Hep C drugs. First, I agree we should celebrate the advent of the potential cure for a devastating viral disease. Second, while the c
by jrapdx3 12y ago
Two thoughts about these Hep C drugs. First, I agree we should celebrate the advent of the potential cure for a devastating viral disease.
Second, while the costs are considerable, expense is not out of line with many other treatments that are not making the headlines. Check into the costs of renal transplantation. And my wife recently had a cataract replaced, a commonplace procedure, the final bill was >$5000.
The issue is the real total costs of treating vs. not treating the disease. It's necessary to take into account the costs of doctor visits, medications, disability, loss of productivity, increased likelihood of illness among family members due to stress, among many other factors.
If a patient can be restored to adequate functionality, and after the Hep C treatment require no more than routine health care, the $84K might in fact be a bargain.
Until we get it clear that we must consider the true total costs of fully treating vs. not treating an illness, we will never be able to make rational decisions about structuring a health care system.
Unless proven otherwise, I'm convinced the system with the lowest total cost is providing care that patients actually need. We only make matters worse by the focus on "cutting health care costs" vs. reducing the total economic burden of illness.
- east2west 12y agoI appreciate what you are trying to do, but I cannot agree with determining the cost of a drug based on potential loss of income/productivity. Should the CEOs therefore get first dips on life saving treatment because they have big impact on his/her employees? Do patients in developed countries have an economic right to better treatment first than people in developing countries? Are some lives worth more than others? I don't think we are ready to go down this route. Incidentally, a very expensive drug is posing these questions, implicitly. But explicit statements like yours are not politically practical or even humane. Ten years ago it was outrageous to hear a nurse to tell a kid's parents to pay up or watch their only child die.
- Houshalter 12y agoThat's not what parent comment is arguing at all. But I don't see why not. Money very likely correlates with value to society and would be a better heuristic than pure randomness - which is also unfair. Although hopefully it never becomes an issue of course - these hypothetical situations where we get to actually choose who lives and dies rarely happen in reality. And obviously it violates cultural values, so would not be a good idea to actually try to implement.