A vial of Remicade costs less that $700 at Drugstore.com. If the hospital gives the infusion, they charge about $8,000.00. And, it is not like my crohns patient can walk down the block and get it cheaper. They have no choice. Now, I know they use a precious IV bag and needle, and 15 minutes of nurse time, and need to make money, but that is just greed.
Yes, but the hospital at least has overhead and cost shifting it has to make up.
I just don't understand why drug companies who can make that $800 to a self pay person, needs to sell it for $400. It just isn't the drug companies' responsibility to treat the needy or fix the medical system. It is their job to 1. Make good and safe drugs, if possible, and 2) make money. It's simply capitalism.
In a purely capitalistic system, there would be no insurance, no government programs and no restrictions of access to either the medical or pharmaceutical systems. Over 50% of the health care in this country is provided by the federal government and another 20% are not insured. But we want to pretend that the private insurance system is the dominant system in the US.
We have, as a society decided that health care (at some basic level) KIND OF is not a right. I say kind of, because:
1) Hospital ERs are not allowed to turn away patients, nor ask their their ability to pay. Then they must admit them and cannot dump them on another hospital. This would suggest that some level of care IS a right.
2) Somehow local governments have become responsible for health care of the uninsured. Why would this be necessary if health care were not a right.
If some level of health care is mandatory and government is assuming the burden of the cost of providing the care, then fully laissez faire pricing for necessary drugs is not in the interest of the larger society and some type of price control might be warranted.
OK, now that I sound to the left of Teddy Kennedy in proposing A) health care as a right and B) price controls on "essential" drugs, I think that it is not only how we have been operating as a country (we put price controls directly or indirectly on quite a number of products, and have already demonstrated that the government provides the bulk (when you include state and local government) of health care in this country.)
While there are those who feel that we should have more of a laissez faire government and less regulation, we are already the only large economy country in the world who does not completely operate as if health care is a right and provide the service to our populace. ("so if everyone else was jumping off the bridge, you would too???") I suspect the majority of persons in this country feel that some form of health care should be mandated, this would only go to suggest that indeed every other country has the right idea.
We have rampant inflation in the health care industry and spend exorbitant sums of money on health care. One way to curb the cost is some type of price control.
WE PHYSICIANS HAVE ACCEPTED IT FOR YEARS WITHOUT ISSUE. Medicare sets the rate and most insurance companies base their rates off of their rates. We must, by law, charge all insurance companies the same rate, and yet they will pay what they wish, not what we want. That, my friends, is PRICE CONTROL. If you don't like it don't accept insurance. Sure, there are a few docs who don't but they are a tiny minority.
So I will argue that I am not to the left of Teddy Kennedy (although he was OK in my opinion) but rather closer to where America has and probably should be operating. Now, let the debate ensue.
