The CancerBreakthroughs that Cost Too Much-Do Too Little

[lennygoran]

In light of the discussions we've had in the past on high medical costs I thought this article might be worth presenting:

The Cancer “Breakthroughs” that Cost Too Much and Do Too Little
Aug 27, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
‘Death panels’ are a bad idea. But asking hard questions about health care is not.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... ittle.html

Regards, Len

[John F]

The key question, and there's no answer to it: "How much is a little more time worth? Would you spend $50,000 for four more months? How about $15,000 for two weeks?" Only the patient and his/her family can answer.

The second question, who pays for it?, is easier. Nobody should be denied an effective treatment for a disease, even if the effects are short term, just because he/she is too poor to afford it. Staying alive should not be the special privilege of the rich. Whether one's health care is paid for by private insurers or the government, depends on which is willing or obliged to pay.

[lennygoran]

The second question, who pays for it?, is easier. Nobody should be denied an effective treatment for a disease, even if the effects are short term, just because he/she is too poor to afford it. Staying alive should not be the special privilege of the rich. Whether one's health care is paid for by private insurers or the government, depends on which is willing or obliged to pay.

I have to disagree --I believe there have to be some cost considerations if we don't want Medicare and Medicaid to go bankrupt. The rich can buy whatever they want and of course I'm jealous--however on taxes and lobbying the government--well that's a different matter. Regards, Len

[Bill_N]

The key question, and there's no answer to it: "How much is a little more time worth? Would you spend $50,000 for four more months? How about $15,000 for two weeks?" Only the patient and his/her family can answer.

The second question, who pays for it?, is easier. Nobody should be denied an effective treatment for a disease, even if the effects are short term, just because he/she is too poor to afford it. Staying alive should not be the special privilege of the rich. Whether one's health care is paid for by private insurers or the government, depends on which is willing or obliged to pay.

Whether the bills are paid by private insurers or government, ultimately they're being paid by you and me. Are you seriously offering unlimited access to your bank accounts to pay my (hypothetical astronomical) medical bills?

[John F]

I was never more serious. Prices of medicines are set by the market, and it's up to the buyers - insurers, the government - to control them. The Affordable Health Care Act has finally made a beginning at doing this, if it is not repealed. But the price of a human life is incalculable, and if setting that price becomes a public policy issue, then we really will have death panels.

[living_stradivarius]

I was never more serious. Prices of medicines are set by the market...

Ok you go ahead and create the next cancer cure while the rest of us kick back and lose all incentive to do any R&D.

[John F]

So you feel that pharmaceutical companies may charge anything they like, however outrageous, and those who buy their products should just fork over the cash without trying to negotiate a lower price? You of all people should know that isn't how markets, and economies, are supposed to work.

[living_stradivarius]

So you feel that pharmaceutical companies may charge anything they like, however outrageous, and those who buy their products should just fork over the cash without trying to negotiate a lower price?

What's outrageous is how many people assume medical breakthroughs magically fall out of the sky every few years.

Of course they can negotiate pricing... Through market competition. The problem lies in the horrendously long and inefficient intellectual property rights (patent) protection process and expiration that sustains monopolies. It also rests in the inflexibility of health care institutions like hospitals in the provision of gradations of treatment.

Price controls, as you suggest, would utterly destroy any incentive to work in medical R&D. The prices we see today are hardly "outrageous". They reflect the advanced nature of medical technology in this country. Someone had to dedicate years towards of time, energy, funding, and intelligence into developing something new and ROI incentive figures into the will to do so. I'd rather live in a world in which these technologies are born at a high price (which decreases over time as new technologies replace them) than one in which they'd never have a chance to exist at all.

If you think existing pharmaceutical companies are paying its execs too much and not putting enough into R&D, then start a new company in that sector to disrupt the market and undercut their prices. If their prices are too high for the market, then a newcomer has a HUGE opportunity to take their business away from them. They might have to resort to predatory pricing to survive. Walk the walk.