A question for those who have Universal Health Care...

[BlackCat]

The doc is dictator in Denmark. Only "limitation" is that the pharmacist are supposed to give the cheapest version of the drug (same drug, but different producer), but that the doc can overrule too if deemed nessecary.

The drug must of course be approved for use.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

there is quite a bit of trouble now in the UK as apparently NHS is not allowing certain Cancer medicines to be used as they are too expensive - however I personally do not think that people if they want to use them cannot go and get them privately if they have the £££... problem is that people want this to be free as the rest of the drugs, which is a fair point but as usual it is "cost/benefit" that is judged not to be in favour of "free" availability...

That indeed sucks, but in my understanding this is far less than 1% of available treatments... it is mostly new/most expensive/experimental that are not on the government risk of available drugs...

AS usual this is a problam for "normal" people as the rich can pick and chose where to go and what to do with paying out of thier own pocket...

edit: and the "normal" can remortgage their own house and the like to get few extra years of life if they think the drugs will help...

[Heraclitus]

I think its reasonable that some medicines be deemed too expensive to be prescribe on government expenses as long as there is a genuine cost-benefit analysis behind it and not just a way to find the funds for a new government jet or a new division of armored vehicles.

[Guynemer]

That's the thing. The medicine in question is cheap as hell. It just boggles my mind. I am boggled.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well if it is cheap than it should not ruin the family finances in principle... but I would find it strange that the "institutions" do not provide it in case it's cheap??? which country - is it Canada?