Meds cost $17K per week?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
$17k a week? That's expensive, but when you consider how much we waste on sports personalities glorified wage earnings its damn cheap.

force one of them to pay for it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Actually, you probably would save more lives and produce a greater net utility by giving it to, say, an emergency room or something like that. Or just find two kids who each have a disease that only costs 8.5k a week.

THats silly-- Do you think there are two kids needing drugs at 8.5K would be denied them if this kid gets his 17K treatment? Bullcrap!! Why couldn't the government make a policy decision and deny those 8.5K kids as well . . . I would think funding an expensive treatment makes it harder to deny less expensive one . . .

!!!!!! Thats it we do a formula to calculate the worth of a given human being and if the maintence cost (prorated and risk adjusted) is less than the residual value, you get the needed treatment. sarcasm/off


Seriously, the Canadian health care budget is many many billions. Paying for this kids drug is a mere drop in a large funding bucket. Yes it will set a precedent but its a precedent I like. Treat children.

If you say we can't afford it, then I would tell you if we have to set priorities, I know I'd be in favor of prioritizing people where effective care is possible.

I know of a burn victim that was burned over a large portion of his body. It was such a high proportion that the survival rate is ZERO. But it takes a long time to die. IN his case it was over 500 days and included a dozen skin grafts, hundreds of tests and more painkilling and anti-infection drugs than can be counted. He never woke up or regained any motor skills at all but there was brain function. We treated him without question

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


force one of them to pay for it.

Take Jose Mourinho, he could pay the $17k a week and still be earning $300,000 a week.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I don't -- I love life .

Clearly, you have a better dealer than I do. PM me his contact info?

You know-- never needed chemicals to have a good time.

If you use them for fun, your choice . . .. but if you need them to tolerate life, you have my pity

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Flubber
THats silly-- Do you think there are two kids needing drugs at 8.5K would be denied them if this kid gets his 17K treatment? Bullcrap!! Why couldn't the government make a policy decision and deny those 8.5K kids as well . . . I would think funding an expensive treatment makes it harder to deny less expensive one . . .

I doubt there are two kids who require precisely 8.5K a week anyway. The point is that most lifesaving treatments, AFAIK, cost less than this.

[Q Classic]

You know-- never needed chemicals to have a good time.

If you use them for fun, your choice . . .. but if you need them to tolerate life, you have my pity

My sarchasm is a bottomless pit.

SO SAY WE ALL!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Dauphin
$17k a week? That's expensive, but when you consider how much we waste on sports personalities glorified wage earnings its damn cheap.

I have actually been suprised that someone hasn't come forward with a donation or contribution. I am actually hoping that this is not done so as to take the government off the hook.

Don't get me wrong -- I mainly want the kid to get the drug but every time a charitable group steps forward and takes the government off the hook for something for which it should be responsible . . . err I just hate it. Then the next kid and the one after have to fight the issue all over again

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I doubt there are two kids who require precisely 8.5K a week anyway. The point is that most lifesaving treatments, AFAIK, cost less than this.

I agree. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there taking heart or blood pressure medicines or treatments for diabetes. SO definitely most treatments are less costly.

There are also hundreds of people in intensive care type units. If you start adding up the costs of their care, its not like 17K a week is so outstandingly expensive to keep someone alive

[Q Classic]

I have actually been suprised that someone hasn't come forward with a donation or contribution. I am actually hoping that this is not done so as to take the government off the hook.

Don't get me wrong -- I mainly want the kid to get the drug but every time a charitable group steps forward and takes the government off the hook for something for which it should be responsible . . . err I just hate it. Then the next kid and the one after have to fight the issue all over again

This, I almost agree and disagree with.

While I'd like to see a personal donor come forward, mostly because it would show that some people actually have decency, it would also almost certainly put the kid and the family into a sort of life-debt to the donor.

At the same time, it would also help prove that if people cared for each other, and actually followed some precepts that so-called Christians/Good People/Morally Righteous always trumpet (y'know, the Love thy neighbor stuff...), we wouldn't need a government to fall back on. 'Cept people are invariably insensitive, cruel bastards who won't prove me wrong, and the government is run by schmucks.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

At the same time, it would also help prove that if people cared for each other, and actually followed some precepts that so-called Christians/Good People/Morally Righteous always trumpet (y'know, the Love thy neighbor stuff...), we wouldn't need a government to fall back on. 'Cept people are invariably insensitive, cruel bastards who won't prove me wrong, and the government is run by schmucks.

Here I kinda agree with you. Its just in Canada I see helping pay for medicare system as being a "help each other out" type of thing. I much rather our system to one where we have a telethon each week for the latest person needing hospitalization. I don't trumpet anthing about morality to anyone. I'm just willing to help pay for anyone to get medical care. There is a self interest there as well I admit in that the system would be tehre fore me should I ever need it.

[Q Classic]

I'm just willing to help pay for anyone to get medical care. There is a self interest there as well I admit in that the system would be tehre fore me should I ever need it.

Fair enough. Still, sucks to be that kid. Hope his misery can be extended.

[Ben Kenobi]

If we want a system that denies a child the drug that will vastly improve and lengthen his life ( thats my assumption here, that the drug will help a lot), be prepared to have others look at medical expenses of other treatments. Wander through an ICU . . . . probably half the patients have no hope of a recovery. If you deny a child this drug on ECONOMIC grounds I wonder how you justify the economics of an 88 year old on a ventilator

I wasn't thinking so much about the folks on the ventilators, but rather about other medical treatment not required to save someone's life, that doesn't cost as much as this.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by nostromo
Maybe the drug was über-expensive in terms of R and D and there's like 20 people on Earth who needs it.

From around the internet, it affects somewhere between 1 in 25K to 100K births. Rare yes, but not that rare.

Originally posted by pchang
Since it is a rare disease, the replacement enzyme is probably:

1) grown in batches requiring a high level of manual guidance
2) from bacterial stock that must be continually replaced through genetic manipulation to make sure mutations do not creep in.
3) separated and purified in batches requiring a high level of manual guidance
4) created in a low yield process
5) done continuously in small batches to maintain a consistent, but small fresh supply (enzymes tend to have a very short half life)

With 850K you could employ two full time techs and still have 6 or 700K a year to pay for equipment and R&D costs. That is two full time techs dedicated to a single patient.

I'm still smelling a gouge.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well sort of.

The medicare program has never been a blank cheque to fund any treatment that people happen to want. But here I support the government funding the drug. Its available and the child can have a decent quality of life. If this costs 15 million dollars, so be it. We spend far more money on thisngs that are far less laudable.

I do think that the pricing should be examined so that it is reasonable but if it is expensive to discover and make, the drug company might be justified with even this high price

The problem could be that there are some socialised countries and some high-end insurance plans, and some very wealthy individuals...

So that there is a market that can afford to pay for a med for any condition. If only ten people suffer from the condition who are covered by 'any price coverage', then develop the drug and recoup the costs and make a profit off of the ten payers for those ten people.

There should be considerably more than ten people in Canada with this condition. Say there are 50. That's 40 million a year for meds for those 50 people. That's a lot of R&D money.

I agree with you. Junior should get his meds. I am questioning how they are priced.

[DanS]

With 850K you could employ two full time techs and still have 6 or 700K a year to pay for equipment and R&D costs. That is two full time techs dedicated to a single patient.

I'm still smelling a gouge.

Make sure to include the costs for all the unsuccessful drug candidates into the costs for this successful drug candidate.