Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
adam jones
11736 Followers
MediaSight
13125 Followers
jpamplinFeb 3, 2012
I would think a bigger blow to men with late-stage prostate cancer is the fact that they have late-stage prostate cancer.
niceguyvanFeb 3, 2012
No, it's bigger cause there's a way to fix that but some assh**e thinks their lives aren't worth the money
mitchellkFeb 2, 2012
A policy which will be coming to the US in the very near future.
garhentFeb 2, 2012
Haha, don't worry with the US policy on allowing insurance companies carte blanche for billing, the US will have collapsed a long time before you have to worry about single payer insurance.
asfinktersezwutFeb 3, 2012
It already is here. Why don't you check your own private insurer and find out just how many of these experimental or unproven drugs they will not pay for.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
Which would be ALL of them.
Hell, my insurance company just declined to pay for over 90% of my wife's pregnancy, calling it an "elective" medical process because we undertook family planning counseling beforehand. And THAT's some of the most basic s**t to have insurance FOR!
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
I am skeptical.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
And irrelevant, don't forget that part.
Whether or not you believe me isn't a valid argument. I KNOW what's going on in my life, you don't. Whether or not you believe me won't change reality.
For what it's worth, it was hard for me to believe when I got the letter as well. But I wasn't surprised when it did, cause for years now I've been watching the mental gymnastics of my family's insurers as they try to tie every problem my wife has ever had back to her asthma, since they don't have to cover her "pre-existing conditions". So this is nothing new.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
You faker. What's the name of the insurance company?
Give us the relevant lines from the rejection letter.
If you're telling the truth we'll all email-bomb them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
axcess99Feb 3, 2012
My understanding is based on the following:
1) private supplementary insurance still exists in the UK (8% of UK citizens have this via employer or individual plans)
2) the drug is approved for usage in UK, but the patient has to fund it from their own pocket or a separate insurance other than NHS
3) US private health insurance companies also deem many drugs "too expensive". Mine has reversed its position twice on one of my prescriptions in the last 18 months alone.
Therefore:
1) this does suck, in that it would be nice if every person could get any medication they needed, but is an unfortunate realty of all nations and all current health care systems.
2) both NHS and private insurance companies around the world make this kind coverage of decision on a routine basis,
3) generally people can not change their coverage/provider in any sort of timely manner if at all, which also sucks if their current provider (NHS, private etc) does not cover the medication they have been prescribed.
niceguyvanFeb 3, 2012
I'll bet if it cured breast cancer they'd be all over it
stevanoskiFeb 3, 2012
You know it.
dsmxFeb 3, 2012
Can't belive the idiots that have posted in this thread, NICE decides if a drugs benefits justify the cost of them. Maybe if the drug company didn't charge such an insane price it would of got approved for NHS use.
Also the drug isn't baned in the UK it's just that the NHS won't pay for it, you can pay for it out of your own pocket or through you private healthcare plan.
auditortuxFeb 3, 2012
"Maybe if the drug company didn't charge such an insane price it would of got approved for NHS use."
So how is the company supposed to recoup the costs of development? Do you know how much it costs to develop a drug, not even included failed attempts? Its a lot like private equity - you hope one hits so you can recoup your losses on everything else.
dsmxFeb 3, 2012
Doesn't make any difference to the NHS what money the drug company makes, NICE judges a drug based on it's merits weighed against it's costs. It's all well and good having all these treatments available but what is the point if no-one but the very rich can afford it?
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
You want genius researchers to work 60 hours /week for nothing.
You're a slaver.
miklkitFeb 3, 2012
Ah, health care for the rich only.
The republicon health care plan "Die young and die fast.".
Closed AccountFeb 3, 2012
personally i prefer "go like hell and go to the grave satisfied."
but whatever floats your boat.
auditortuxFeb 3, 2012
Ummm... this is the NHS, the vaunted single-payer system... that provides universal healthcare.
How is that "health care for the rich only"?
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
The drug is only available to the rich. By definition, that is healthcare for the rich only. This concept isn't exactly advanced calculus here.
Why is it that the moment someone mentions healthcare the average digger throws his brain out the f**king window?
Mention insurers or UHC and all you hear is HHURRR-DERP-E-DURP-HUMDERPHURD-EDURP.
auditortuxFeb 3, 2012
Its only available to the rich because the government said they will not pay for it themselves. Too expensive, so its cheaper to let those men die. Funny, I believe people said that might happen but were mocked and then ignored...
One of the good things about our backwards system is that when an insurance company pulls something like this, we typically see media stories and Senators and the government pressures them until they start to cover it.
You don't have that benefit over in the UK.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
1: THere ARE private insurers over in the UK, with all the same benefits and limitations that American insurers have.
2: This happens without recourse here in America every single day. Just this week I had to start talking to several different insurers here in OK because my wife's plan won't cover pregnancy and mine only covers it if it is an "accidental" pregnancy, and only a certain amount even then.
That's just for basic coverage. Talk out your ass some more. I've had several family members die for lack of drugs or treatments that insurers know actually work, but won't pay for.
auditortuxFeb 3, 2012
1. Actually, most private insurers in the UK are supplemental, going above and beyond NHS. I can see some of their advertising being written now with this decision.
2. The problem here in the US with insurance companies is that it is nearly impossible to price compare based on coverage. It'd be nice to get a la carte insurance (say, I'm male and if I'm not covering my wife, I don't need pregnancy covered) or to tailor a policy to you (I have no history of mental health problems in my family, so I might be willing to take that risk). What we have in the US, sadly, is prepaid medical treatment. The larger problem is we don't know what we are prepaying for.
Imagine if you could by an insurance policy that worked like this: you pay a small amount each month. Any time there is a medical event, you pay some percentage, up to a maximum (a true deductible). If you hit an annual maximum, everything is covered.
Sounds great... for those without expensive, constant medications. Insurance is inherently about insurance against high cost, low probability events. That model mathematically does not work if you start putting in high probability events. That's the larger problem... we're trying to insure what mathematically is not insurable.
Take mandatory coverage of physicals. That is something that happens every year. Part of your premium is paying for this. Their calculation is basically (cost * %chance) and then they add in a bit to cover overhead. So if you have a 100% likely cost, you're actually overpaying for that physical because you're paying the insurance company for their overhead. In that case, the insurance is essentially just an interest rate...
kasha34Feb 10, 2012
"without recourse"
You can fight it and win.
My uncle was denied
frequent MRIs to see how fast an acoustic neuroma was growing. My father put together a case a the insurance company agreed to the more frequent MRIs.
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
Without recourse. Bull. You can fight them. And statistically, half the time you win.
"my wife's plan won't cover pregnancy and mine only covers it if it is an "accidental" pregnancy"
What? Please provide some kind of cite for this. Or the name of the insurer. Maybe you should re-read the letter they sent you.
"I've had several family members die for lack of drugs or treatments that insurers know actually work, but won't pay for."
Several? Die? What was the drug?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Feb 10, 2012
Who do you think you're quoting there? Oh, you made it up? What a surprise.
publikjohn9Feb 3, 2012
So much for government healthcare.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
Shocker: American insurers do the exact same thing, but with over 50% of regular drugs as well!
Idiot.
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
No. They don't.
That's one reason that our cancer survival rate is noticeably better than the Brits.
willxhuntFeb 3, 2012
1) would not happen with titty cancer, with all their political campaigning and oprah crybabying ...
2) relying on universal healthcare seems as productive as relying on jesus for a cure.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 3, 2012
Try and get this drug from a private insurer in America.
LOL. Forgot most companies there won't pay for expensive cancer treatment there either. Haha. You get to die from prostate cancer too.
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
Cite or stfu.
The British papers are full of examples of being denied cancer drugs that are standard in the US.
willxhuntFeb 10, 2012
the logical statement gets -3 .... the goof gets +3 .... this is how Digg works.
dlallaFeb 3, 2012
Actually, almost nothing for prostate cancer is of proven benefit. We shouldn't even be screening for it. The money would be better spent elsewhere and anybody who doesn't realize there are finite resources and funds is disconnected from reality.
If this drug had enough benefit and was priced proportional to that benefit I'm sure it would have been approved. Late stage prostate cancer is a losing battle and Americans who want to pay thousands for drugs that don't do anything or maybe prolong their suffering a little just don't get it...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 2, 2012
dont ya love communism type healthcare? /s
garhentFeb 3, 2012
Just think if Steven Hawkings had to use the NHS he'd be dead now.
dandoniaFeb 3, 2012
Nobody has to use the NHS, they can go private.
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
So they pay double. First through taxes and then private?
dandoniaFeb 4, 2012
Can opt out of National Insurance.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
No. They can just opt out of the data collection.
PAYING for NHS is mandatory.
dlallaFeb 8, 2012
Amazing how every major country in the world somehow manages with 'terrible' national healthcare that would all have us dead when we're sick and yet medical bankruptcies are almost unheard of... only an American could say stuff this stupid. Nobody should have to sell their house or car for say, a complicated gallstone, for example.
garhentFeb 8, 2012
Welcome to the US where its a mark of honor to be a no nothing inbred hick. It will be interesting to see how the US corporations deal with state sponsored capitalism. I frankly blame a lot of the US economic woes on lobbying and the corporations who fought to get it legal. I hope those corporations go down burning in hell frankly.
asfinktersezwutFeb 3, 2012
Check your own Insurance company. You'd be surprised how few of them in the US will cover this drug - and many others.
fatiguecareFeb 3, 2012
yeah... great going ....
kasha34Feb 3, 2012
Cite. Or stfu.
asfinktersezwutFeb 3, 2012
I was going to respond to your statement with citations and an explanation, but then I realized, you're an assh**e.
"Cite. Or stfu." is no way to engage in an adult conversation, so if you think this is a mature and reasonable way to communicate I suggest you need your head examined and strongly urge you to grow up or go f**k yourself.
kasha34Feb 4, 2012
Yeah, right. You weren't going to do s**t. You pull this stuff bleeding out of your arse.