4 ms·

Pretty sure that I speak for most humans when I say that a $100k medical treatment might as well be a $100m treatment. There's some quote like "any quantitativ

Pretty sure that I speak for most humans when I say that a $100k medical treatment might as well be a $100m treatment. There's some quote like "any quantitative value is qualitative at sufficient scale". $10,000 is the most expensive thing I've ever purchased--and I'm still paying it off.

carbocation 11y ago
"Quantity has a quality all of its own." Attributed to Stalin but perhaps a misattribution.
mb_72 11y ago
I am no expert, but I am guessing like with most things the newest medical technology starts of at it's most expensive point, then decreases over time (as economy of scale or improvements in production efficiency kicks in). So if this treatment is 100k now, but 10k in 5 years and 1k in 10 years (just postulating) it makes it very affordable for people 10 years down the track. Once governments add the treatment to their pharmaceutical benefits programs the cost at that time could be close to zero for a lot more people. Of course we all want the best treatment Right Now, and sadly some people will die who cannot afford a certain medical procedure or medication, but this still seems like a discovery and advance worth thinking positively about.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Just caught part of the 2013 documentary, "Fire in the Blood", wherein pharma actively worked to keep affordable generics out of government programs in poor nations. Millions suffered and died nedlessly as a result. And, "true costs", of course, had little to do with it. Our economic priorities are heartbreaking. Little wonder, as our most important economic entities (corporations) are granted personhood, but would essentially be classified as psychopaths if they were actually human.
jakejake 11y ago
My traditional chemo was $20,000 for each treatment, twice per month. Much more expensive than $100k per year. I'm lucky to have insurance, so I didn't bear the cost. The insurance company paid a substantially lower amount for the treatment. So it does seem expensive but from my experience it's cheaper than what we have now.

carbocation 11y ago

"Quantity has a quality all of its own." Attributed to Stalin but perhaps a misattribution.

mb_72 11y ago

I am no expert, but I am guessing like with most things the newest medical technology starts of at it's most expensive point, then decreases over time (as economy of scale or improvements in production efficiency kicks in). So if this treatment is 100k now, but 10k in 5 years and 1k in 10 years (just postulating) it makes it very affordable for people 10 years down the track. Once governments add the treatment to their pharmaceutical benefits programs the cost at that time could be close to zero for a lot more people. Of course we all want the best treatment Right Now, and sadly some people will die who cannot afford a certain medical procedure or medication, but this still seems like a discovery and advance worth thinking positively about.

unclebucknasty 11y ago
Just caught part of the 2013 documentary, "Fire in the Blood", wherein pharma actively worked to keep affordable generics out of government programs in poor nations. Millions suffered and died nedlessly as a result. And, "true costs", of course, had little to do with it. Our economic priorities are heartbreaking. Little wonder, as our most important economic entities (corporations) are granted personhood, but would essentially be classified as psychopaths if they were actually human.

jakejake 11y ago

My traditional chemo was $20,000 for each treatment, twice per month. Much more expensive than $100k per year. I'm lucky to have insurance, so I didn't bear the cost. The insurance company paid a substantially lower amount for the treatment. So it does seem expensive but from my experience it's cheaper than what we have now.