Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday January 23 2019, @10:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the stop-being-poor dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:20PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @04:20PM (#790656)

    "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)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:43PM (#790707) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @09:07PM (#790808)

      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)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:22AM (#790965)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @01:42AM (#790974)

          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)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday January 24 2019, @02:05AM (#790987)

            It really is not difficult to understand.

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @03:44AM (#791023)

              I have no personal experience with the NHS but just using common sense I knew this would be the case:

              The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) is admired by governments abroad but regularly provokes an outcry in the UK. It was devised to do a job no health minister wants to do – to decide which new medicines are worth having in the NHS and which are too expensive.

              The drug companies have been understandably hostile from the outset. More difficult for Nice has been the fury of patients' groups, which have sometimes gone into battle on the manufacturers' behalf.

              One of the noisiest battles was over drugs for Alzheimer's. In 2001, Nice said that Aricept and others like it could be used for patients with mild to moderate disease, but in 2005 it changed its mind. It ruled that they were not cost-effective for people in all stages of Alzheimer's and should only be prescribed by NHS doctors for those with moderate disease, not mild.

              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)

                by dry (223) on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:55AM (#791107) Journal

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:26AM (#791184)

                  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)

                    by dry (223) on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:00PM (#791293) Journal

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:30PM (#791355)

                      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

    by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:26AM (#791123)

    "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

    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