Oregon Woman Denied Drugs for Lung Cancer, Offered Assisted-Death Pills

[Kregisen]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

(continued)

A sad story about the healthcare issue. The point they try to raise in the article is that the insurance companies should just fork over the money, no matter how much it costs, to keep the patient alive another 6 months, but I think the real issue is the high cost of some drugs to begin with. Healthcare is not my specialty, so I don't have any specific recommendations for keeping drug costs low, except maybe looking at allowing more competition or less regulation, but arguing over who should foot this bill I think is the wrong way to go. Really it doesn't quite matter who pays for it anyway, because the insurance company wants to make a profit, and if their costs go up, their profit maximization point for premiums will also go up, so if they pay for more expensive treatments like this, their premiums they charge will go up to cover it anyway.

The million dollar question is, how do you make expensive drugs like that cheaper than $4,000/month?

 

[Carehn]

This would be a way cool money bomb for us to have. I bet we could raise 4 grand in like 30 minuets. And for us.... just think of the good word it could bring to the campaign. just a thought

 

[jmdrake]

The million dollar question is, how do you make expensive drugs like that cheaper than $4,000/month?

You cut regulation on the front end so that the drugs are cheaper to bring to market and on the back in you shorten the amount of time such drugs can be patented. Once drugs go off patent they become cheap. That and there needs to be more competition from natural remedies which are cheaper and often work better.

 

[Kregisen]

You cut regulation on the front end so that the drugs are cheaper to bring to market and on the back in you shorten the amount of time such drugs can be patented. Once drugs go off patent they become cheap. That and there needs to be more competition from natural remedies which are cheaper and often work better.

Yup those were the two obvious answers. How long do patents last for in the health industry? Around 20 years?

 

[dillo]

You cut regulation on the front end so that the drugs are cheaper to bring to market and on the back in you shorten the amount of time such drugs can be patented. Once drugs go off patent they become cheap. That and there needs to be more competition from natural remedies which are cheaper and often work better.

that's not a fail safe plan. I agree with the first part, force the drug companies to compete internationally. However when you reduce the years that drug companies can patent their ideas (not 20 years btw) than you decrease the incentive for them to create new life saving drugs

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This would be a way cool money bomb for us to have. I bet we could raise 4 grand in like 30 minuets. And for us.... just think of the good word it could bring to the campaign. just a thought

You would think we could raise that kind of money, eh? Motivating folks for anything other than Ron & Rand however is problematic at best. I tried in 2010 and again this cycle for just 1000 people at $10 each, and it hasn't quite worked out.

 

[MewMint]

when you reduce the years that drug companies can patent their ideas (not 20 years btw) than you decrease the incentive for them to create new life saving drugs

Design patents cap out at 14 years(which is still too long). Endless patents don't drive innovation, they drive profiteering. Drug companies don't spend most of their money on research, they spend it on administration, dividends and marketing. Long patents exacerbate the problem.

Patents at the time of inception usually involved mechanical devices which in most cases required everything from securing funds for initial investment to setting up manufacturing capabilities. Drug are nothing like this and have a built in market and are owned by massive conglomerates. Patent laws were made to drive innovation and innovation has stagnated in recent years. In large part due to how our patent laws are designed. The patent is there to encourage innovation and assure the innovator profits from their creation rather than the best marketer.

Patent laws were mostly for small entrepreneurs they've been warped to benefit large corporations that don't even particularly need them.

 

[dillo]

Design patents cap out at 14 years(which is still too long). Endless patents don't drive innovation, they drive profiteering. Drug companies don't spend most of their money on research, they spend it on administration, dividends and marketing. Long patents exacerbate the problem.

Patents at the time of inception usually involved mechanical devices which in most cases required everything from securing funds for initial investment to setting up manufacturing capabilities. Drug are nothing like this and have a built in market and are owned by massive conglomerates. Patent laws were made to drive innovation and innovation has stagnated in recent years. In large part due to how our patent laws are designed. The patent is there to encourage innovation and assure the innovator profits from their creation rather than the best marketer.

Patent laws were mostly for small entrepreneurs they've been warped to benefit large corporations that don't even particularly need them.

trust me, I am not defending the massive drug conglomerates. However I fail to see how taking away patents for new drugs from these corporations; Whom you claim dont need them will somehow encourage them to do more research. I am no expert on patent laws or application but they do seem to provide incentive for drug companies to come up with new drugs

 

[MewMint]

I'm not objecting to patent laws in general. But length, I am.
You want the patent to last long enough to recoup loses and spur some profit. Not go on into perpetuity. There are some special cases where design patents have been extended for over three decades. And it wasn't Mary across the street who got the extension.

Consider two scenarios:
Company A makes drug X for cancer treatment.

Scenario #1
They hold a patent on it for twenty years. The only threat they face is if a competitor can make a better drug. If no company bests it for this type of cancer, their continued profits are assured.

Scenario #2
They hold a patent for just five years. If they don't start developing a newer, better drug immediately after finishing the first one, their monopoly runs out and they're one of many offering the same thing.

Which spurs more innovation and progress? Long patents make lazy businesses that focus on marketing and streamlining over innovation. There is no incentive in scenario one for them to do anything for over a decade. They would literally be competing against themselves, which makes no sense.

Maybe our bloated patent system is better than no patent system. I can't say, as no modern economy has existed without one. But I can say there's a lot to be improved. And the simplest thing to implement is a reduction in the number of years a patent lasts.

 

[squarepusher]

The most likely case is, the $4000/month drug wouldn't help or cure her

 

[Diurdi]

I'm sure there's some text in her insurance contract that allows them to do this.

 

[asurfaholic]

why doesnt the drug company bite the bullet and give the drugs to her at least at a reduced cost. I mean they get enough government protection that allows them to profit enormously, they should return the favor.

 

[LibForestPaul]

I have no problems or ethical questions in supporting the insurance company. She entered into a voluntary contract. She could have chosen a different insurance company. She choose not too.

$4k month...How much is this drug in Canada, Japan, Costa Rica? What entity prevents Americans from obtaining low cost drugs? I have no pity for Americans. Keep voting the way you do America. Keep trying to steal from you neighbor.

 

[mczerone]

Abolish patents altogether.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Wait for national health care, at least your death pill will likely be red,white and blue, and you will be told what a great service you are doing by not being a burden on society.

 

[osan]

You cut regulation on the front end so that the drugs are cheaper to bring to market and on the back in you shorten the amount of time such drugs can be patented. Once drugs go off patent they become cheap. That and there needs to be more competition from natural remedies which are cheaper and often work better.

Agreed. May as well because these companies are bringing to market all manner of wickedly dangerous compounds that maim and kill people all the time. Just look at the problems caused by anti-depressants alone, not to mention all the vanity drugs for wrinkles and hair and what have you. Clearly the FDA is not fulfilling their intended role, so why not open the flood gates so that at least the few decent compounds that do manage to make it to market are at least affordable. Oh wait! Non-affordability is part of the point, is it not?

By being non- or barely-affordable, drug companies make better per-unit profits. Insurance companies are the only entities capable of shelling out for them because they take the income from the healthy person's premiums and apply them to pay for the costs. This is a form of taxation, fundamentally indistinguishable from others in that citizens are given no choices, save perhaps to die or remain seriously ill. Circumstance or at times law forces people to have to buy insurance in order to be able to secure healthcare. This bends people toward acceptance of ever greater third party control over their lives. One either accepts the costs and conditions of being insured or comes to want state-mandated "free" insurance for everyone. Such people either lack the intellect to understand the manipulation or are simply unwilling to see it, preferring the path of least resistance or the fictional notion of a "free lunch". Few are smart enough AND willing to step away from this hopelessly corrupt system of large scale behavioral control.

In this scheme lies large political power. The pharmaceutical and insurance companies are part of that scheme and enjoy a significant share of the power as front-line instruments of social engineering. I doubt their complaints about the regulatory environment are completely genuine.

 

[123tim]

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.

Yet another example of a law that sounds good at first, turning on us and creating something horrible. Forced euthanasia for old people and other "unproductive" citizens is obviously just around the corner.

All that is needed is for this test case uproar to die down so that people can get used to this new concept and then accept it.

 

[MelissaWV]

why doesnt the drug company bite the bullet and give the drugs to her at least at a reduced cost. I mean they get enough government protection that allows them to profit enormously, they should return the favor.

I am wondering if she's even tried this, though I am on my way out the door and will admit to not reading the article.

Drug companies are helping with "reduced cost medications" to a lot of people. It helps their image and, like it or not, establishes their brand. It also continues to provide feedback and data about longterm risks/benefits of their drugs.

Many companies don't want to do these things early on because any death has to be reported and included in their initial studies. Once the drug is approved, things are a little less strict.

She might also try the hospital, or raising the money among her community members, or any number of other things.

And yes, you should go check your insurance policy right now. A lot of cheaper policies will not cover the biggies anymore. There's a cap on cancer treatments, there's a cap on stays in the ER for heart-related complications, there's a cap on surgeries, there's a cap on nursing/PT visits after a big event. There is absolutely a cap on what they'll pay for really expensive drugs.

 

[Diurdi]

I have no problems or ethical questions in supporting the insurance company. She entered into a voluntary contract. She could have chosen a different insurance company. She choose not too.

Is it possible that the insurance companies are fraudulent in living up to their contracts?

I've seen alot of US citizens complain about Insurance companies not covering what they're "supposed to" cover.

 

[angelatc]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492


The million dollar question is, how do you make expensive drugs like that cheaper than $4,000/month?

The same way prices fall on everything else - let the market work.

If the government passed a law that the insurers had to pay for this treatment no matter the cost, there is no incentive for the price to ever fall. If the government passed a law that capped the price, there would be shortages.

The harsh reality is that not everybody will be able to afford these treatments, especially in the beginning, but I'm pretty skeptical of the drug actually having any significant effect anyway. If I'm right...in a free market the pills would be sold exclusively to elite clientele, who would die anyway. The demand for the treatment would never rise.

However, if the pills really are wonder drugs then the demand for them would grow, and the company making them would scale up production and lower prices.

I think the issue really is - and this is one libertarians have trouble dealing with - is are we as a society willing to turn away when the media plays these sob stories for us? The answer seems to be no for most people.