Medicynic

The good news is that there  may be a drug that improves, somewhat, the survival of patients with malignant melanoma.

The bad news is that the drug company marketing the drug, Bristol Meyers,  is charging $120,000 for a course of treatment, four injections over three months.

In that randomized clinical trial, patients with metastatic melanoma treated with Yervoy lived a median of about 10 months, compared with 6.4 months for patients in a control group, who received a treatment believed to have had little effect.

And:

More than 20 percent of the people who received Yervoy in the trial lived at least two years, and some of them much longer. But there is no way at present to predict which patients will benefit from the drug.

But, always a but:

The drawback is that loosening the restraints on the immune system can lead to dangerous side effects, the most worrisome being colitis and diarrhea, but also hepatitis, endocrine dysfunction and skin problems. The F.D.A. said that 12.9 percent of patients treated with Yervoy suffered severe or fatal autoimmune reactions.

Medicynical Note:  The drug in this early study appears to have some efficacy and significant toxicity. Half the patients treated get less than a 4 month survival benefit–if this study’s finding hold up in the future.  (It should be noted that  first studies often show better results than confirmatory studies)

Can our non-system of care afford a $120,000 drug that improves survival just 4 months?  Can 99% of our citizens afford such a drug if insurance doesn’t cover.

The pharmaceutical industry deserves credit for helping develop an  drug with some efficacy.  But charging 3-4 times the average person’s income/year, takes the pay us or die ethic to a new extreme.

The question is not whether we will ration care by cost to most people but how.  It should be understood that whatever the approach we take,  republican or democratic, the wealthy will be more able to afford that which is not covered by insurance. 

We may have the opportunity in future elections to decide. 

The CBO sent Representative Ryan a letter analyzing his proposals.

Federal payments for Medicaid under the proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts. States would have additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs, and they might achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care than under current law. Even with additional flexibility, however, the large projected reduction in payments would probably require states to decrease payments to Medicaid providers, reduce eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law. (Medicynical emphasis: The indigent will either get less care or  to pay for it themselves (really!)

A private health insurance plan covering the standardized benefit would, CBO estimates, be more expensive currently than traditional Medicare. Both administrative costs (including profits) and payment rates to providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare. Those higher costs would be offset partly but not fully by savings from lower utilization…..  (Medicynic: meaning people who can’t afford care won’t get it) Moreover, CBO projects that total health care spending for a typical beneficiary covered by the standardized benefit under the proposal would grow faster than such spending for the same beneficiary in traditional Medicare under either of CBO’s longterm scenarios.

Medicynical note:  Yes, this is the same CBO that Representative Ryan and his followers criticized when it projected significant budgetary savings for the Health Reform package passed by the last congress.

As noted yesterday, there is nothing in this regarding insurability, community rates for the insured, and mandating coverage of pre-existing illness.  It seems a license for insurance companies to cover the healthiest and leave the rest to no or inadequate  coverage.   It’s a cynical and somewhat sophisticated way to ration care by monetary resources and wealth.

It should be noted that almost half of baby boomers and succeeding generations of retirees have inadequate retirement savings:

Excluding their homes, 24 percent of boomers say they have no retirement savings. Those with nothing include about 4 in 10 who are non-white, are unmarried or didn’t finish college.

At the other end, about 1 in 10 say they have banked at least $500,000. Those who have saved at least something typically have squirreled away $100,000, with about half putting away more than that and half less.

Every other industrialized nation provides health care coverage for virtually it’s entire population.  Cutting access to care, providing inadequate  coverage for the aged, sick, disabled and infirm, and doing nothing about the 50 million uninsured appears to be the new American way.

More here: Representative Ryan Proposes Medicare Plan Under Which Seniors Would Pay Most of Their Income for Health Care