Most Expensive Drugs in the U.S.
goodrx.com
goodrx.com
A cancer diagnosis is hard. The fact that not only may you lose a loved one, but then to confront the cost of treatment during the phase when you are just trying to accept that diagnosis is something else.
Even without that drug I would be bankrupt if I had chosen a different career that afforded my family less coverage.
The knowledge that hundreds of millions of people in the richest country that has ever existed live like that sickens me.
My Mum was diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. She had radiation, chemo, 4 different trail drugs and more pills and doctor visits than I ever want to remember over two and half years. Multiple multi-day stays in hospital and of course all the at-home care towards the end.
It was horrible, and I wouldn't wish it on the worst person in the world.
None of it cost a cent out of pocket, and my parents are both retired teachers (average middle class) with just normal public healthcare.
Australia can figure this out but the USA can't? Feels more like doesn't want to.
I went through the cost/revenue data from public Big Pharma companies a few years ago, long story short, the US prices are subsidizing the rest of the world's (ie. really only first world countries) "free" healthcare.
I hear that touted so often, and I've never seen a shred of evidence to support it.
Also, if it's true - why aren't US citizens rioting in the streets about it? Surely they don't want their tax dollars paying for other countries to have more affordable healthcare than they do themselves!
Just take away the profits of big pharma and health insurance companies in the US and let me know how much cheaper the entire thing would be.
It would certainly be infinitely cheaper, yet, all that money would be diverted to funeral directors.
Strangely enough in plenty of countries that money goes towards actually providing care for people, or in fact, the people just get to keep it for themselves because it's all so much cheaper.
Your argument is like saying tons of people will be without internet if everyone uses much cheaper municipal broadband, despite the evidence proving otherwise.
A better analogy would be to expect wired internet connectivity at the top of the Everest summit for $19.99/month with free installation fees. Even this would be orders of magnitude below the complexity of the rare disease treatments.
And yet, many, many countries around the world with significantly lower GPDs and GPD per capita have had it figured out for decades now. It's a solved problem.
Are you saying the USA can't do what other countries have been doing for decades?
This should make you feel better. Poor kids with leukemia would get CHIP in the US[0]. Similarly depending on your mother's age she may qualify for Medicare[1] or if so sick that she had little to no income Medicaid[2], but since shes a retired teacher she likely would have a pension with a state provided healthcare plan. What is a problem is being lower middle class and having a chronic condition that is not disabling, too poor to afford insurance yet not poor enough for assistance.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Insuranc... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
1) being aware of their existence
2) knowing you're eligible and
3) fulfilling all the bureaucratic requirements
makes the utility of these programs by the old, poor or young incredibly difficult.
The big price tag is irrelevant, there's the most you can spend on approved treatments in a year.
You obviously can, especially if the point is about you being privileged and callous.
There's absolutely no way you can have a medical system without insurance (either govt underwritten or private corporation underwritten) beyond something trivial like a village herbalist.
The only question is who does the underwriting and even more importantly how are the premiums collected (taxes, that is proportional to income, or flat fees).
I wouldn't wish either you or your partner to be told to pound sand upon experiencing an health related issue. To know that something can be treated, but to be told GTFO. I wished to have a discussion about the matter, but you are obviously not ready for this to happen.
"where a family member was told"
That's second-hand. Accusing me of bad faith is a bit off-base.
I know the medication I take costs 5-6k a month in the US (without insurance) but I am able to get it for 700-2k in everywhere else.
I suppose it's about what you'd like to highlight.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/01/baby-boy-is-...
I am willing to bet that this is used to save more lives in the UK than the drug will in the US.
spinal muscular atrophy is the number 1 cause of child mortality in the UK, now any child with this disease can get the treatment. In the US people will still need to jump through hoops with their insurance company to get the treatment and there will be cases that go untreated because of the cost.
Generally speaking, the US insurance system handles catastrophically expensive cases well. It’s the smallish cases (broken legs, etc) that are burdensome as copays leave families on the hook for several hundred to a few thousand dollars after insurance pays its contribution.
https://smanewstoday.com/news-posts/2021/04/26/danish-family...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/08/nhs-use-worl...
Very recently UK government has struck a deal with Novartis to provide "the world's most expensive drug" to children with spinal muscular atrophy - at £1.8M a dose(the amount NHS agreed to pay Novartis is confidential).
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/08/nhs-use-worl...
My own father has been treated with Glivec for over 8 years, all on the national health service - treatment which in the US costs about $100k/year.
Like, I'm genuienly curious if you have a source, or is this just a flex of some kind?
It's not goodrx's fault in their reporting (bravo to them, in fact), it's that there is no transparency into that industry that would provide such a breakdown (that I know of -- surely never see it reported).
If you take a pill for 3 months at $10k/month does it have an “annual cost” of $120k or $30k? And if it’s the latter then it would be less confusing if “annual” were omitted.
Of course, there's the problem of when companies make a 'new' drug that is very similar to an existing drug/generic that already exists. A great example of that in my head is how Cymbalta is not that much different than Effexor.
As a consequence, many large drug companies spend more money marketing drugs than developing them — https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2019/7/...
The second most expensive costs 1m. But that's per year.
1m/year > 2m/lifetime