U.S. insulin costs per patient nearly doubled from 2012 to 2016, study finds
The cost of insulin for treating Type 1 diabetes in the United States nearly doubled over a recent five-year period, underscoring a national outcry over rising drug prices, according to a new analysis.
A patient with Type 1 diabetes incurred annual insulin costs of $5,705, on average, in 2016. The average cost was roughly half that, at $2,864 per patient, in 2012, according to a report released on Tuesday by the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute.
The figures represent the combined amount paid by a patient and their health plan for the medicine and do not reflect rebates paid at a later date.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Insulin Costs Nearly Doubled From 2012 to 2016
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 64 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 23 2019, @10:38AM (17 children)
from the insurance industry: "can you sick people just hurry up and die?"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @12:20PM
From the life insurance people: "Can you medical industrial complex people do your job and do it cheaper?"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 23 2019, @12:54PM (14 children)
They don't want them to die, not until they've drained the entire family's net worth - then they can die.
Actually bought a cord of firewood from a backwoods Alabama family who lost the family farm to the hospital - Daddy got sick, and after 3 months they ran up a bill sufficient to foreclose on the 80 acre estate that had been passed down for 4 generations, then they pulled the plug and called out the debt collector lawyers.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:33PM
That's the medical industry - the insurance industry is on the hook for a lot of that expense too, and is only interested in your survival if it means you can reasonably be expected to pay enough future premiums to cover their current expenses.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:14PM (6 children)
Sounds more like a failure of insurance coverage, or did someone who owns 80 acres not have insurance?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:55PM (2 children)
What part of backwoods Alabama did you not understand?
I just bought firewood from these old boys, I didn't audit them, but if I had to guess... ah, nope - just Medicaid most likely.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:12PM (1 child)
Medicaid will pull the plug and call debt collectors? Or did you mean the hospital?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 23 2019, @08:25PM
As I said, I was buying a cord of firewood from these good 'ol boys - they were probably in their 30s. The story lasted as long as it took to fill up the back of the pickup with firewood, so details were sketchy. Sounded like it was the hospital, and it sounded like the lawyers had already done the deed and foreclosed on the land.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:18PM (2 children)
It sounds a lot more like an exploitative medical industry to me.
There is a better way to do it, as every other country in the developed world knows.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:33AM (1 child)
You still get the exploitative pharmaceutical industry, though you might have the buying power to make a difference. Here in Canada, drugs cost a fortune as each Province/Territory negotiates separately.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:34PM
That's true, they are exploitative. We have a national drug buying agency, and surprise surprise our American friends were very keen to hobble it during the TPP negotiations.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:28PM (5 children)
Daddy got sick, and after 3 months they ran up a bill sufficient to foreclose on the 80 acre estate...
Slightly tagnetial....
How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy [consumerreports.org]
Expanded health insurance helped cut the number of filings by half
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:04PM (4 children)
And then....
Under Trump, the number of uninsured Americans has gone up by 7 million [vox.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:21PM (3 children)
And now those poor hospitals will be forced to post their prices online. Won't someone please think of the hospital lobby!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 23 2019, @09:20PM (2 children)
As a taxpayer, I'm glad to know exactly how much I'm paying when an uninsured person shows up at the hospital and they're obligated to care for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @09:34PM
Well you won't know that, since they are only publishing the "chargemaster" values, which are typically 2-10x higher than the real price.
Also, emergency room expenses are really far down there in terms of where healthcare spending goes. The vast majority is for chronic conditions in the elderly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:10AM
Probably less than you would be paying if society doesn't look after the less fortunate. One small disaster and a lot of us would be out on the streets doing whatever we could to survive and ensure our family survives. Education, healthcare, etc. are costs that we all pay for the benefit of all.
(Score: 1) by Tokolosh on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:27PM
Smokers die young and die quickly, saving the rest of us money.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 23 2019, @12:52PM
If it's legal for loan sharks, why not for Pharmaceutical manufacturers?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @01:56PM (2 children)
The cost didn't significantly increase, the price did.
That's a major problem with the US medical system.
This isn't about the cost of production. It's about charging what the market will accept.
Acceptance includes not causing too much outrage which would result in Congress stepping in.
See frog boiling principle and/or buy drug company stock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by Tokolosh on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:32PM
All the debate and politics is about who is going to be forced to pay the inflated price. How can we shift the burden to someone else? But addressing why the price is so high in the first place... nothing!
Rising prices also mean that there is little incentive for providers and suppliers to do something about rising costs.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:11PM
Or using enough of those profits to line our congress critter's pockets to look the other way.
Drug industry price increases (and healthcare in general, as well as insulin costs) have far exceeded inflation for more years than I remember.
As I mentioned [soylentnews.org] on a previous diabetes article [soylentnews.org].
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:00PM (11 children)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act [wikipedia.org]
Life expectancy also decreasing since 2014:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/12/why-are-so-many-americans-dying-young/510455/ [theatlantic.com]
Here is whats going on:
1) When the government subsidizes something it gets more expensive.
2) Much of this "healthcare" is actually worse than doing nothing, so "more access" leads to earlier deaths due to drug misdosing, medical errors, side effects, etc.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:58PM (10 children)
1) When the government subsidizes something it gets more expensive.
Which explains why other Western countries that have fully funded healthcare for all have shorter average lifespans and more expensive medicine ..... Oh wait! They don't!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:25PM (2 children)
I'm not as educated as I would like to be in this department, but I was under the impression that most of the "good" countries had government funded healthcare, not government subsidized health care.
That distinction seems important to me, though I can't say why I'm more willing to believe that the government would make better use of its own money than someone who'd receive that money for meeting certain criteria would.
I'll have to reflect upon that opinion.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 23 2019, @09:25PM (1 child)
Canada has a government insurance system.
England has publicly funded services.
They're both much better than the US.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:42AM
Canada has 14 government insurance systems. We also have some of the most expensive drugs in the world, 2nd highest I believe, partially due to the fractured healthcare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:07PM (6 children)
Sounds like they can't even get basic stuff like a wheelchair or enough beds despite being 15 billion usd in debt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:32PM (5 children)
The reason the NHS in the UK is struggling is because successive Tory government have under funded it, in an attempt to prove how much better the private sector would be in providing healthcare.
They have already done that to the trains, with the same result. Worse service for more money.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @08:07PM (4 children)
Oh, so centralized/socialized medicine works fine until politics messes it up. Is that what happens?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:28PM (2 children)
Because politicians who are against it mess it up. You may as well say there's no point to having a lock on your door because a criminal can mess it up with, for example, a can of liquid N2 and a good swift kick.
Of course I know what you were really trying to say/do here, but it doesn't work, so I'm replying to vaccinate anyone unfortunate enough to read your bullshit against the stinkin' thinkin' in your post. FOaD, post-haste.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:39PM (1 child)
Not a good analogy. It isn't inevitable that someone is going to break the lock. It is inevitable that politicians will mess up whatever it is they try to do and make it 10x more expensive than it needs to be (at least in the US).
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday January 25 2019, @02:54PM
What is it about the US that ensures that politicians will mess up whatever it is they try to do and make it 10x more expensive than it needs to be?
Is it something in the constitution that has this effect?
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:18AM
Socialized medicine works so well, that once a country tries it, it becomes so popular that it winds up being a political consensus. Any party which offers to dismantle it loses elections. In the case of my country, they lose badly.
The UK has the problem that there is a section of the Conservative party that thinks 1910 was the best time to be alive. And it was if you're the Earl of somewhere, or your Grandfather made a fortune from coal or wool.
They are doing their level best to take Britain back to that time, with the help of people like Rupert Murdoch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:20PM (11 children)
"Drugmakers say they periodically need to raise U.S. list prices of their medications to help offset steep rebates they must offer to get them covered by insurance plans"
So if this is true, it is the insurers who are to blame
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:43PM (9 children)
Yes, IF this is true. But why would you believe them? What evidence do they offer? How transparent are their finances?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @09:07PM (8 children)
When they say 'rebates', that's probably a euphemism for kickbacks.
Basically, insurance company comes in and you offer your product for $10, but then 'Bruce' offers his for $100. But, 'Bruce' is shrewd and puts $50 worth of unmarked bills in a brown paper bag and casually leaves it on the seat after a lunch meeting with the insurance company about their next supply contract. He does this every year, for as long as his product is chosen for tender.
Lo and behold, the insurance company always goes with 'Bruce' for some reason.
You get wind of this and start thinking, ok, I'll charge $150, but I'll put $100 in the brown paper bag. See where this is going?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:22AM (7 children)
Bruce seems to be really good at convincing Rubes that he's acting in their best interests too, based on some of the scorn for "socialized" medicine on Soylent News today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:42AM (6 children)
People from other countries complain about how the us government messes up everything around the world, then wonder why people in the us dont want them deciding which medical treatments, etc are available. It really is not difficult to understand.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 24 2019, @02:05AM (5 children)
Apparently it is really hard to understand that proper taxpayer funded healthcare does not work like that.
Doctors decide what treatments are available. Politicians provide the money.
Now it's your turn to explain how I'm wrong, and the Minister of Health goes around all the hospitals making sure the doctors don't don't give people too many injections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @03:44AM (4 children)
I have no personal experience with the NHS but just using common sense I knew this would be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/21/nice-nhs-drug-approval [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:55AM (3 children)
Perhaps they have evidence rather then propaganda? I live close enough to America that I get their media. Endless commercials pushing drugs. If the $1000 medicine is basically the same as the $100 medicine, which should the government pay for. Same as if something is hopeless such as advanced Alzheimer's.
I think in the States, it's the same except it's the insurance industry making the decision, with some corruption thrown in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:26AM (2 children)
The point is that under the NHS, the government decides what treatments are available.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)
And under private insurance, the private company decides what treatments are available. As private industry is usually more inefficient due to needing to make a profit and pay its executives bonuses and golden parachutes, the government by default is a better choice. If you disagree, well you do have the choice of private.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:30PM
Oh yea. Health insurance is a huge scam. It is much cheaper not to use it. I would like to get a really high deductible plan for really cheap. I mean like a couple hundred dollars/year with a $20-100k deductible, but that doesn't exist because it would make too much sense.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:26AM
Yes, because after all, the drug companies are all bleeding out money and are being forced into bankruptcy.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:44PM (2 children)
Get an entire nation to give up healthy diets in favor of obesity- and diabetes-inducing alternatives. Reap profits.
Get the fat, sedentary couch potatoes to give up reading and crafts in favor of TV-, movie- and video-watching activities. Reap profits.
Completely muddy the waters of exercise and diet to treat obesity and diabetes by funding countless contradictory studies and medicate the problem instead. Reap Profits.
Jack up prices of insulin that is the last option for those sufferers hoping to avoid amputations and death. Reap profits.
Last up, find some way to amp up the costs of funeral services beyond the already sky-high levels. Reap profits.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by stretch611 on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:20PM (1 child)
Type I Diabetes has no relationship whatsoever to diet and exercise. While you are attempting to blame big business, they are not the problem in this case. In fact heredity has a lot to do with this.
Type 2 Diabetes can be related to diet and exercise, but even that is not the full story as that also has a lot to do with heredity. Not to mention, but most Type 2 diabetics do not require insulin. (At least not initially.) However, the drug prices for type 2 diabetes can make insulin look cheap. (And if the diabetes progresses, type 2 diabetics will require insulin.)
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:51PM
We know the cure for type 1 diabetes, people just find it distasteful.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:55PM (12 children)
I work in healthcare now and have seen things like this happen. It's not just insulin.
What we have here is not a problem of either technology or supply, except in a few rare cases. It's purely a political issue. Goods and services have varying degrees of elasticity in the demand for each; the lower the elasticity, the more the supplier/consumer relationship approaches a hostage situation and, in my view, the less then "invisible hand of the Free Market" should be allowed to interfere with it.
People are quite literally being held up in a "your money or your life" situation, and very often it's both with some degree of lag in the forfeit of one or another. The only solution is to change the entire paradigm of healthcare in the US, and there is absolutely no reason we couldn't do it European-style except greed, greed, greed. Even the excuse that the US is huge doesn't hold water; this is a *perfect* opportunity for all the states' rights people to show how a minimal set of federal guidelines and a path that ultimately ends up at the fed for the collection of the money would work (my prediction: the worst states, all the red ones, will do the bare minimum, but they WILL be forced to do it).
But no. Profits over people. Mama has to die slowly in agony, *after* we're all homeless and cold and hungry, because otherwise think of the Jeorghb Creatiz (TM) not getting their fair share!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:56PM (1 child)
Yup, but too many US citizens think reigning in wealth inequality will hurt their small business. It is so ridiculous, yay propaganda! Boo education!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:09PM
I don't believe many people are thinking that. Instead they are thinking the government is full of incompetent buffoons whose best skills are lying and scamming.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday January 23 2019, @09:35PM (3 children)
For the life of me, I can't understand why people like these (and people who know them) vote for/against the party that wants to tear down/establish universal healthcare in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @10:32PM (2 children)
Perhaps you value (at least the appearance of) security over freedom?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:24PM (1 child)
Let's see you find your "freedom" scrounging for scraps out of a dumpster in january when it's below freezing outside, asshole.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:41PM
Don't get your point. Also, everyone I know who went homeless went to California or New Orleans where it is much easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @10:52PM (2 children)
Which European style?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:26PM (1 child)
Nearly all of it? Just about the entire EU and the Scandinavian nations in particular do this the right way.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:30AM
Instead of "European" you could say OECD or "developed world" perhaps.
Those of us who live in Oceania have proper healthcare too. In fact, when I was in Australia on business once I though I was having a heart attack. I could not have had better care anywhere, and there was no charge, because why would there be?
My boss enquired if the company's insurance should get in touch with St. Vincent's Hospital in Melbourne and was told no, they don't have a collections department, so they would be no-one to give the money to anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @11:39PM (1 child)
What this problem needs is a non-profit company or cooperative producing and distribution insulin for a reasonable price.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:32AM
Or, proper, taxpayer funded healthcare, like the civilised world has.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:08AM
Basically how it works in Canada. The feds collects and distributes money, the Provinces (and Territories) run their healthcare according to the minimal guidelines from the feds. The Provinces also do some of the financing. As the feds can't force the Provinces to do healthcare, the carrot works well, along with the voters liking public healthcare.
Actually government healthcare started at the Provincial level, back when farmers often voted socialist, at least in the Provincial elections.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @03:29AM
We have added even more money to the system then somehow magically expected costs to go down.
Two adults in their late 30s costs 12000 a year with a 5k deductible. That is nuts. In 1990 I could insure an 85 year old woman for 250 bucks a year. Insurance and healthcare costs went fucking bonkers after hillarycare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:18AM
However the actual health results are very mediocre. And yet the sick population keeps making horrible choices...