One costs $60/year, the other is over $2M/year and not tested and not widely used outside the US
Remicade is available in (at least) these countries: - US - Japan - Europe - Turkey - Russia
Entyvio: - US - Europe - Canada - Japan - Australia
Biologics are the first line of defense for anything over mild IBD. The only effective treatment for above moderate that isn't a combination of other meds is Rinvoq. The small dose items like Azith and Pred are just for flare management, and aren't maintenance medications.
I’m saying that in many countries, like Brazil, an insurance company can’t deny a treatment for a covered condition because it’s too expensive.
So, for example, if the insurance covers prostate cancer, the doctor can prescribe any medically proven prostate cancer treatment and the insurance company can’t say they’ll only pay for a cheaper treatment.
That's exactly why his doctor wanted to do it, because it had worked in the past. This wasn't some insane lab experiment done by a fresh grad gastro doctor.
For example, my father in-law had prostate cancer. His health insurance covers prostate cancer, so the doctor was able to prescribe any medically proven treatment he had access to. The first treatment they tried was the one with highest percentage of success, and then changed it to other treatments depending on how the cancer responded.
Cost was never brought up, and they never heard complaints from the insurance company.
Lots of insurances accessible to middle class families also cover in-testing treatments that have shown success in other countries, if the patient matches conditions for the trial and other approved treatments didn’t work.
It's at least $60,000, not $60.
Just one of the biologics is 500k/year
The prednisone still had him shitting blood 20 times a day. Cheap indeed.
How do we even have a conversation if you take drugs that are approved for treating a condition and just hand wave that they are "not tested"?
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2024/76...
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/10...
I'm not against experimenting with new drugs, I just don't think we should force insurers to pay since 99% of the time the experiments will not work
We should move toward a pay for performance model but not torch the cost controls while we're at it
The gold standard for testing the combination would be to test it against the standard of care, so it's fairly precious to complain that the doctor and patient here don't have a big enough pool.