[uhtred]

Did you read the article? The drugs did work, but only at the high doses prescribed.

In fact I am certain you did not read it, as no decent person could read it and say "but it's crazy to me that people can read this and come away thinking the insurance companies are the bad guys."

[mgraczyk]

I read it, the drugs may have worked but it's possible that one or both were not necessary, or that some other change caused it. The relevant question is bigger than "did it work", it's "was the likely causal improvement enough to justify the cost"

These drug combinations are mostly not approved outside the US because of a lack of data

[alp1n3_eth]

It literally says in the article: "McNaughton had tried individual biologics".

This means he most likely had already tried them alone. Remicade especially, as it's essentially been the most popular biologic (aside from humira) for the last 15 years. Do you need to see his full medical history before you have a little empathy? As a person who isn't a gastro doctor I'm sure you'll fully understand it.

[uhtred]

All that matters to the patient is that it worked.

[mgraczyk]

Perhaps, but it may not actually work and there are trade-offs. For example if the treatment were $1T we obviously would not do it.

How do we allocate resources? Who gets to decide? These questions don't disappear when you change policies, it's just the answers that change

[uhtred]

Why would a treatment ever cost that much? It shouldn't even cost what is does, it's not justifiable.