Posted on 08/29/2011 7:39:56 AM PDT by Marty62
Thank you for the info.
Effective September 23, 2010
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored/evaluated on a 3 month basis for coverage of the medications for treatment of such illnesses.
Rationing has already began.
IF a cancer patient is not seeing miraculous results from an expensive drug in 3 months. Does Medicare DENY any further treatment for that patient?
Why would Pharma provide these drugs if they only have 3 months to show results?
Actually it is a business issue.
Aside from the various problems noted, the companies have no moral or legal responsibility to produce anything that does not make a profit. Drug companies are not responsible to or for people with cancer.
So far as ethics go, where is there an ethical break down?
Lastly, name 3 people who died of cancer because the drugs were no longer available.
What investigative journalist?
I would bet most of the msm see’s noting wrong with sick people dying if a pill will not cure them immediately. Yes that is harsh, but I think the msm is to busy trying to prop up Obama rather than working for the public good.
see attached FR discussion from a couple weeks ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2766456/posts
Lastly, name 3 people who died of cancer because the drugs were no longer available.
Your joking right?
The way it was explained to me.
A company (company A) has a patent on a drug/brand name. Another company (company B) petitions them to get a license to create a generic cheaper version for the usual 20 years. When that 20 year license expires they can’t make it anymore without getting a new license.
Over time and 20 years is a long time in drug manufacturing, improvements come along. Company A can make an improvement to their product and repatent/or pertition for exclusivity again. (see my previous post)
Company A could repeat this process 3-5 years at a time for a long time.
I’m not sure if a company is obligate to allow for generics before their patent wears off. Researach and development isn’t cheap. Company A is going to make more money off of the brand name drug. The problem here is that a lot of insurance companies won’t pay for brand if generics are available so its in the best interest of company A to not allow cheaper generics.
We may be seeing a lull in between ‘versions’ of generics.
Another explanation I was told is that pharm companies make more money off drugs for chronic problems than they do for drugs that actually cure something.
I can certainly see where a ‘created’ shortage would also drive prices up.
None of the scenarios look good. :(
In case of an emergency, like a hurricane or some other life-altering event, this can make it very difficult to get medications prescribed.
It is not unusual for the pharmacy to need to contact my doctor when filling my prescriptions. If I were to run out of my medications and communications were in such disarray that the pharmacy could not get authorization from my doctor, I could very well find myself in a potentially hazardous position.
Throw prescription shortages into the mix, and this has the makings of a nightmare for someone like me.
Rationing is something that keeps me up at night. How would I access my medications? I wouldn't be able to.
I believe that is according to plan. Socialism never protects those that they think are weak. That's been the sinister truth behind Obamacare, all along. It's never been about health care. It's only about controlling the population.
“They’re hitting each and every industry at the various choke points.
They know how a capitalistic system works. And they are leaving no stone unturned in their broadbased attempts to undermine that system.
This is just one example. Yes, the consequences of these moves are serious. But when has bad outcomes ever stopped the left?
They’ll just blame it on whoever they feel like targeting at that particular moment”
BTTT
No. no joke
I doubt any death (cancer or otherwise) would ever be listed as being caused by a drug shortage. Some other excuse/label would be attached. A little cya so to speak. jmo
The ones who are silent now, but will show up with many hit pieces as the stronger Republican candidates become apparent. But calling them so high sounding a term as "investigative journalists" does probably take it too far. They're more like the MSM/Democrat opposition research sleaze merchants.
Absolutely right. Socialist/Fascist/Commies/Progressives are NOT about humanitarian societies. It is all about Power, like rapist. When the U.S is not around to save the starving, ill and oppressed of the world. Which is the Obama administrations goal. What will the world look like?
Did I miss something? When was our nuclear industry destroyed?
According to my source Nuclear med facilities are having trouble getting Isotopes for treatments. Apparently facilities that produce them are becoming fewer and fewer.
Shortages only occur if markets aren’t free to produce, distribute and clear.
You are correct. The cause of death on the death certificate would be the disease, not the lack of drugs to treat it. To find people who died because the drugs were not available would be very laborious and uncertain - have to interview the treating doctors, who could not always definitively say "this person would be alive because the drug would definitely work for him."
Rather than naming people, you would need population statistics. "This was the survival rate before the drug shortage, this is the survival rate during the shortage," or better yet compare the survival rates for the specific cancer among people who got the correct doses as scheduled, and those who didn't. Even those results might be skewed, as oncologists may try to direct available drugs either toward the most severe cases, or toward those they deemed to have the best chance if they got the drugs.
Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma
First Posted: 08-13-09 11:10 AM | Updated: 09-13-09 05:12 AM
Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.
1. Agree to increase of Medicaid rebate from 15.1 - 23.1% ($34 billion)
2. Agree to get FOBs done (but no agreement on details — express disagreement on data exclusivity which both sides say does not affect the score of the legislation.) ($9 billion)
3. Sell drugs to patients in the donut hole at 50% discount ($25 billion)
This totals $68 billion
4. Companies will be assessed a tax or fee that will score at $12 billion. There was no agreement as to how or on what this tax/fee will be based.
Total: $80 billion
In exchange for these items, the White House agreed to:
1. Oppose importation
2. Oppose rebates in Medicare Part D
3. Oppose repeal of non-interference
4. Oppose opening Medicare Part B
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
It’s not just cancer drugs. I posted on other threads citing examples of other drugs we use routinely in the OR. The latest was this past Friday....we received notice of a national “backorder” of IV Pepcid.
I said before & I’ll say again: something strange is happening.
However, like a poster above pointed out, the MSM will not look into this. What they fail to realize is that they, too, may fall victim to this ‘rationing’
elites always make the mistake that what effects the great unwashed masses will NEVER touch them. WRONG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.