|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ahmes
5556 days ago
|
|
|
The problem doesn't end there. Once these drugs' exclusive rights expire and "generic brand" prescriptions are allowed to compete, most insured patients will still prefer the "name brand" as they are only charged co-pay. Some insurance providers may place restrictions on which drugs are eligible for treatment but this is not the case with traditional U.S. sponsored Medicare/Medicaid (patients are free to choose between "name brand" and "generic brand"). Medicare/Medicaid patients may also be eligible for limited co-pay exemption. ("Why wouldn't I take the 'name brand'? I'm not paying for it./I'm paying the same price anyways.") This further drives up the price of "name brand" medication, simply because the "name brand" can get away with it. "Name brand" suppliers will also cut discounted deals with various insurance companies...no such luck for the uninsured though. One particularly frustrating example I heard from my sister was about a mother on Medicaid who refused to switch her 19-month old infant from formula to solid food (infants usually make the transition around 7 months), complaining that the child had digestion problems when she tried. (Digestion problems are normal and temporary during the transition.) Formula is more calorie rich than seal milk and nearly as expensive as printer ink, however the patient had to pay for food but didn't have to pay for formula. As a result the infant became obese and developed diabetes - the treatment for which, is also covered by Medicaid. Meanwhile uninsured/ineligible patients are forced to go for the "generic brand" pills due to a huge price disparity. This wouldn't be so bad as generic brands are generally just as effective, except that suppliers of generic brands can sometimes change who they source their pills from, subtly changing the dosages with them so users must constantly stay on alert to see if their pill changes color or shape as this could be an indication of a shift in supplier and depending on how sensitive the drug is, have mild to severe repercussions. The Obama health-care reform was seeking to fix this issue by providing a third party government insurance plan which would promote a more transparent market in this arena amongst other things... |
|
|
So, patients pay (a bit), so they avoid unnecessary treatment. But they don't have to pay to much. And if the drug companies try to play funny-buggers, they get shut out.
Also, the subsidy process is completely hands-off (it's run by an untouchable board of experts), so while it's a little inefficient (untouchable experts are always inefficient) it's incorruptible.