america is so fucking based man

in any proper country that company at least gets forced to pay by the government then ordered to shut down forever due to wanton cruelty. all the employees get generous severance except whoever made that call. depending upon your view of carceral punishment there are a few ways to go with that guy.

  • tyrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m not sure what’s worse, the insurance was cut or that a life saving drug is 2.1 million?!

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      That the insurance was cut. Ethics of private drug R&D aside researching costs resources, resources need to be reimbursed, and if you have a drug that heals a rare illness with one dose you sell very few doses. Another drug for another illness might cost as much to research, but you need a dose every month and there’s millions upon millions of patients. Let’s also assume that both drugs cost the same to produce, per dose. Which means that to cover total costs a single dose for the first drug might have to cost two millions, and the other 20ct.

      The alternative to this is saying “You have a rare illness, tough luck, we won’t research drugs for it it benefits too few people”.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Places very tightly control the price drugs can be sold for all over the world. They audit the cost of operation, RD, etc and then adjust the price based on a regulated percentage of profit. This means that drug prices, in the rest of the developed world, are far lower than the US. Even in places with non-socialized healthcare like Switzerland, and Japan. Drug companies are still there, still making money, and not increasing drug prices by 1000% because they want to. Then there is the humanitarian practice of subsidizing the cost to patient for exceptionally expensive treatments. For example, the alternative treatment to this drug is more than twice the cost of the drug, it is also less effective, leaving a lot of long term costs. So EU countries, for example, subsidize this drug because it actually ends up saving the tax payers money to do so. This makes it available to the ~1/10000 citizens with the condition, spinal muscular atrophy.

        In the US this will likely bankrupt these people, leaving the costs for them and the taxpayer. This ends in a total loss of economic productivity higher than the government just footing the cost for the drug in the first place. The US system is lose/lose. Both the patients and the government pays more than anywhere else. The only people winning here are corporate executives and their shareholders.

  • invertedspear@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Important facts for people that didn’t bother to read the article: it’s $2.1m each, so total is $4.2m. The coverage of the drug was cut on a schedule that was determined in January. The diagnosis of the disease was 5 days after the cut.

    The cost isn’t an issue in my mind, but I think good to know how much the parents are in for. Insurance companies exist because of these costs, they should have to cover any treatment that has significantly higher success rates, especially when the lack of coverage will result in death, or other life-long consequences.

    The timing and schedule are important as the headline makes it appear this decision was in response to these kids being born with the condition, when in fact, there was no diagnosis at the time of the cut and these kids were still months away from being born when the decision was made.

    Final bit, though this wasn’t in the article, the drug is being covered for these kids. It took pressure from the state government apparently, or maybe just all the bad press. Shouldn’t change anyone’s opinion on POS insurers, but it’s at least good news that these kids aren’t condemned to a death sentence.

    • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      What legitimate reason would there be to price drug like that? Is that what the r&d cost to create it? Greed. Thats where 99.9% of cost issues end up for

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Modern medical research targeting worldwide drug distribution is ridiculously expensive due to legislation in different countries. Gone are the days when a pharmacist could give random shit to the unsuspecting clients to see if they would survive their walk home. And I don’t think you’d want these days to come back.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    What’s most pathetic is the scale. $2.1 million may seem like a lot for a single use drug, but that $2.1 mil loss dissipated out to shareholders probably isn’t so much. I don’t have the exact numbers but I’ll bet the loss of revenue isn’t even a blip to the average shareholder income.

    They’re killing newborns based for what amounts to nothing to them. It’s sick.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          No, I don’t know what you mean. Because you’re clearly confusing what insurers do and what pharmas do.

          • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Wait, so Insurance companies aren’t publicly traded companies with stockholders? Dropping a covered drug so they wouldn’t have to pay out isn’t protecting their stock price? Maybe I am confused.

  • _number8_@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    In a statement, Chief Executive Officer Mike Poore told KCTV5:

    “Global pharmaceutical companies are putting profitability over affordability, making it impossible for employers like our hospital system to bear the financial burden of these exorbitant drug prices.

    In January 2024, Mosaic’s Health Care Trustees made the gut-wrenching decision not to cover expensive gene therapy used to treat ultra-rare diseases. Covering these treatments could cripple the financial viability of our health system, directly impacting our more than 4,000 employees and the approximately 270,000 people who rely on the health care we provide in small communities across four states.

    We are working hard to help find alternative solutions and financial resources to help in this case. Bottom line: Families should not have to focus on the astronomical costs imposed by drug companies, but instead should be able to focus on the care of their children in a medical crisis.”

    wow it’s almost like it’s a shitty fucking system and you’re very much a part of it.

    from his linkedin:

    “Mike is one of the finest men with whom I have ever worked. He relates well to and inspires his employees. He demands high quality while keeping his eye firmly on the bottom line. I would follow him anywhere!”