Skip to main content

I want to ask a question.   In 1980, there was an act passed; Bayh-Dole act.  I've been told this allowed universities and professors which received federal money to do research to patent any discoveries made using federal funds and profit from the government financed research.  I have also been told that a lot of these discoveries are many of the multi thousand dollar per treatment medicines.  Can any one enlighten me on this.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I really can't answer your question jt. I have some insight into the costs of medications because of presntations and studies I was involved in when in residency. That still fails to explain everything however. Recently I went to a local medical equipment comapny because I believe you should support your local companies whenever possible. I had a prescription for the item written by my primary care phsyciain. The first lady I talked to wanted copies of my medical records and other things which I knew for a fact they really did not need, however she said it was "required" by my insurance company. I left and went to another supplier. They never asked for the records, despite the fact that I was using the same insurance. First they gave me a "cash" price, and then they gave me the rpice if I used my insurance.  The insurance price was $10 higher and it would really only go toward my deductible, since according to them I had not met my deductible.  I knew the price was too high so I came home and did a little internet search.  Found the same item, exactly the same online for 1/3 the price, no tax and free shipping. I faxed my prescription to them and the order was complete, so i got three for the price of the one.

I tried to explain that to the first company I went to, but they thought I was crazy, so they lost my business and any future business.

The moral here is to shop around.  Also most of the prices you are quoted are dictated by your insurance company.  Add to the this the markup on these items and every little bit adds up.

There are multiple variables that influence price, and it is too hard to pin down just one, which is why the ACA has done nothing to curtail costs, the only thing it did was to shift them onto other items, or other people.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
I have had several MD offices want to copy my drivers license and when I refuse they get mad.  I show it to them to prove who I am but do not let them copy due to id theft concernes.   I have also had them tell me its required.

__________

I don't like giving it to them either. They also ask for my SS number & when I refused one time, I was told the doctor would not see me if I didn't supply that number. I ended up giving it to them because he was a specialist I needed to see. Since then, I have been ask for it at several different medical practices & hospitals. I thought because of ID theft, we had the right to refuse & still be able to see a doctor.

The reason for the SS# is that most insurance companies require it.  It is also used by some medical records systems as the primary identifying number.  

 

The reason for the photo ID is to be sure you aren't trying to use someone else's insurance.  It also helps in maintaining records, tracking down the deadbeats, and there may even be a government requirement. 

 

Our area is understaffed with doctors, and it just isn't worth it to them to have patients that want to be contrary about something that is fairly essential to them getting paid.

At a local eyeglass business, I showed my drivers license and insurance card.  They wanted my  SS number, at work it had been specifically explained not to give SS numbers, a picture id and insurance card was all that was required.  I refused to give SS number, the receptionist got mad, I got stubborn and left. I called the insurance company, explained the problem, told the business name and phone number.  I was told to give them about 5 minutes. After 5, I went back in, the picture id and insurance card was all that she asked for and the looks I got was priceless.  I was smart enough not to gloat and needle her.

Crusty
No need for someone to copy a drivers license and i always just give them the last 4 of my SS number.   When i asked my MD assistant where they stored my info she pointed to a large shelve with no locks.  I then asked her what stops cleaning crew or anyone else from copying the info. My MD did not say a thing when i did not let them copy.

Most insurance comapnies I have dealt with absolutely require the SS# in order to process the claim.  Most typically use this number as the patient ID number.  We have many incidents in the past with people posing as someone else with insurance attempting to get care using other's insurance card and SS#, which is what now prompts the requirement to get a picture ID (remember the ones that you don't need to vote with....).  Due to HIPAA regulations from several years ago, your medical records MUST be protected and the information cannot be left accessible to outsiders, this however does not mean that a person who works in the office such as cleaning crew cannot get to them, but they are supposed to be protected from outside access.

It is a sad state of affairs but the insurance comapnies make it as hard as possible for the person who is filing the claim (the office) to get their money, which is why alot of offices are considering cash only practices.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Freezing a credit report controls who receives it, not what's in it.  It does control who may ask for credit in your name.

Well yes and that is the point to prevent someone from getting credit in your name.  Credit reports I am pretty sure do not show if someone received medical services in your name.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

At a local eyeglass business, I showed my drivers license and insurance card.  They wanted my  SS number, at work it had been specifically explained not to give SS numbers, a picture id and insurance card was all that was required.  I refused to give SS number, the receptionist got mad, I got stubborn and left. I called the insurance company, explained the problem, told the business name and phone number.  I was told to give them about 5 minutes. After 5, I went back in, the picture id and insurance card was all that she asked for and the looks I got was priceless.  I was smart enough not to gloat and needle her.

_____

Good idea! I'm going to call my insurance company too, see what they say.

Read this...

http://www.nola.com/crime/inde...woman_checks_in.html

Here is the story, just yesterday, of a lady who attempted to gain medical care while wearing the "in memory" shirt of her dead sister, she was pretending to be.

I guess she failed to sign up for Obamacare.

In any case, these incidents happen daily.  People will try to sign in under someone else's name, using someone else ID.  Just about the only ID format that is personlized universally is the SS# in the US, which is why it should be protected, but also why it is used in this situation.

Last edited by teyates

I'm still trying to understand (I of course speak with sarcasm) why we in the US have to pay roughly 5 times for any given medication as anyone who lives in another country pays for that same medicine. 

With less sarcasm I ask, just why the hell do we the voters allow OUR bought and paid for Congressmen to allow that ?
One more example of voting against our own self interest.

]

 
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I'm still trying to understand (I of course speak with sarcasm) why we in the US have to pay roughly 5 times for any given medication as anyone who lives in another country pays for that same medicine. 

With less sarcasm I ask, just why the hell do we the voters allow OUR bought and paid for Congressmen to allow that ?
One more example of voting against our own self interest]

 

______________________________________________________________________________

The adverse effects of many other drugs are also causing lawsuits. Over the past six years, more than 65,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed against drugmakers, more than any other industry. And the lawsuits are likely to continue increasing, given the number of drugs on the market and the number of consumers taking them.

http://articles.mercola.com/si...utical-lawsuits.aspx

 

The reason you asked for!

 

 

I think there is a more speedy approval process, but it still takes years to get a drug to market, jt.  The costs of the drug is figured in the expense to develop it, produce it, and then to cover potential lawsuits in the immediate future.  The reason most drug cost decrease after a few years on the market is because the likelihood of a serious medication effect leading to litigation decreases over time, and second the introduction of the generic variant.

You can't turn on the TV without seeing a commercial for 1-800-Bad-Drug or some other clown who is advertising for clients who have suffered "serious effects" from this medication.  Half the time, the symptoms they are supposed to treat are the ones listed as the complication. It is ridiculous.  "If you have ever suffered a heart attack while having dialysis, call us"....really?  Because that is a common cause of death in people with renal failure, and if you did not have reanl failure, why are you having dialysis? It is a never ending cycle of abuse.

Another reason you see so much advertisements on TV is because the money which was spent on educationg the physicians on the drug had to be spent elsewhere. Government restrictions on the visitation and "drug visits" by the reps to the physicians' offices were enacted years ago, putting a large number of drug reps out of business.  This was an attempt to keep companies from enticing doctors to use their drugs by giving them gifts, etc.....which is a good idea,  but again this a good intention that backfired and the comapnies found another way to get their product out there.  Nowadays the patient comes in and tells the docotr what they want to be on, he or she writes a prescription for it, the patient has a reaction, blames the doctor and the company, and hires a lawyer.

Its a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

Last edited by teyates

Oh absolutely, I agree as well. However, there are those in government who do not want you to receive these "free" samples of drugs given out by your doctor. Their attitude is that if one gets them everyone should, or none at all. The closets used to be full of samples which could be used to start a patient on a new drug, which allowed them to find out if it would work before they filled their prescription, now the closets are pretty bare.  No drug reps to bring in those samples because of interference and shananigans on both sides.

Originally Posted by Stanky:
 
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I'm still trying to understand (I of course speak with sarcasm) why we in the US have to pay roughly 5 times for any given medication as anyone who lives in another country pays for that same medicine. 

With less sarcasm I ask, just why the hell do we the voters allow OUR bought and paid for Congressmen to allow that ?
One more example of voting against our own self interest]

 

______________________________________________________________________________

The adverse effects of many other drugs are also causing lawsuits. Over the past six years, more than 65,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed against drugmakers, more than any other industry. And the lawsuits are likely to continue increasing, given the number of drugs on the market and the number of consumers taking them.

http://articles.mercola.com/si...utical-lawsuits.aspx

 

The reason you asked for!

 

 

=============

And that affects the cost of the drugs in the rest of the world how ?

 

Originally Posted by teyates:
  Nowadays the patient comes in and tells the docotr what they want to be on, he or she writes a prescription for it, the patient has a reaction, blames the doctor and the company, and hires a lawyer.

Its a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

===============

An example of just one of the unintended (or possibly intended ) consequences we see now of ending the broadcast laws that disallowed  drug, doctor, hospital, or lawyer advertising.
Things to consider in a "deregulated" world that a lot of corporations want.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
 
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I'm still trying to understand (I of course speak with sarcasm) why we in the US have to pay roughly 5 times for any given medication as anyone who lives in another country pays for that same medicine. 

With less sarcasm I ask, just why the hell do we the voters allow OUR bought and paid for Congressmen to allow that ?
One more example of voting against our own self interest]

 

______________________________________________________________________________

The adverse effects of many other drugs are also causing lawsuits. Over the past six years, more than 65,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed against drugmakers, more than any other industry. And the lawsuits are likely to continue increasing, given the number of drugs on the market and the number of consumers taking them.

http://articles.mercola.com/si...utical-lawsuits.aspx

 

The reason you asked for!

 

 

=============

And that affects the cost of the drugs in the rest of the world how ?

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

In other countries the drug companies don't need to add the extra cost of paying ambulance chasers and higher insurance premiums. Out of the U.S. its just pricing for the cost of research, production, distribution, advertizing, smaller incidental costs, and profit for the shareholders. It takes a large pot of money to pay out for the lawsuit lotto.

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
 
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I'm still trying to understand (I of course speak with sarcasm) why we in the US have to pay roughly 5 times for any given medication as anyone who lives in another country pays for that same medicine. 

With less sarcasm I ask, just why the hell do we the voters allow OUR bought and paid for Congressmen to allow that ?
One more example of voting against our own self interest]

 

______________________________________________________________________________

The adverse effects of many other drugs are also causing lawsuits. Over the past six years, more than 65,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed against drugmakers, more than any other industry. And the lawsuits are likely to continue increasing, given the number of drugs on the market and the number of consumers taking them.

http://articles.mercola.com/si...utical-lawsuits.aspx

 

The reason you asked for!

 

 

=============

And that affects the cost of the drugs in the rest of the world how ?

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

In other countries the drug companies don't need to add the extra cost of paying ambulance chasers and higher insurance premiums. Out of the U.S. its just pricing for the cost of research, production, distribution, advertizing, smaller incidental costs, and profit for the shareholders. It takes a large pot of money to pay out for the lawsuit lotto.

I would argue that it is all the same pot, although I agree we have way too many ambulance chasers trying to litigate every thing.
I maintain that the only difference is that big pharma here has bought and paid to have certain congressmen's peckers in their pocket. (with apologies to LBJ)

 

I would argue that it is all the same pot

 

Probably not the same pot if those drugs are sold by the foreign subsidiaries of the drug companies. Also, how is it fair to charge a foreign customer an inflated price to pay American lawyers? It is our stupid laws that allow the robbing of the pharmaceutical companies who in turn punish us with higher prices for electing politicians bought and paid for by lawyers and legal firms.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/ind...es/indus.php?ind=K01

Another reason is the strict control put on medications in this country for no real reason other than control.  You can go into any pharmacy in Europe or Central America and get a medication from the pharmacist, or at the advice of a doctor, and the medication can cost only a few dollars.  Here the FDA, along with other agencies (come of which are in line with the AMA, want you to see a doctor, get a prescription, bring it in and get a prescription. Most prescriptions are written only for six months, meaning another refill or doctor visit, although some may go out a year.  Every day they add more restrictions.  Just this week, Ultra (tramadol, which is supposedly a non-narcotic drug with minimal evidence of addiction, was moved from one schedule to another requiring a new prescription for those who already had one, and the prescription must be a written one, not faxed from the doctor's office.  Every day more regulations....

Last edited by teyates
Originally Posted by seeweed:

I'm still trying to understand (I of course speak with sarcasm) why we in the US have to pay roughly 5 times for any given medication as anyone who lives in another country pays for that same medicine. 

With less sarcasm I ask, just why the hell do we the voters allow OUR bought and paid for Congressmen to allow that ?
One more example of voting against our own self interest.

]

_______________________________________

 

It is the government that YOU love so mush that's causing the problem/

It's the remains of a screwed up , failed wet dream of a past president who was obsessed with punishing the anti-war effort.
Things don't change when a new president comes into office, often the same old policies of presidents long dead still haunt us.
Ford didn't change it,

Carter didn't change it

Reagan didn't change it

Bush1 made it worse

Clinton reversed Bush1's crual war against the terminally ill, but didn't change the original policy

Bush2 didn't change it

So far, Obama has not changed it, but has weakened it somewhat .

When will we start voting for people who are progressive and want to end Nixon's insane war on drugs ?

 

Progressives will no more end the war on drugs, than the social conservatives. It best, the libertarians will. But, progressives hate most everything libertarians stand for.

 

That strayed from the thread.  To return, to the high cost of prescriptions, a number of reasons were shown:including regulations and long testing periods required by FDA and extremely litigious nature of the US today. 

 

Another important reason is research costs are passed on in the US, but not overseas, especially in Europe. 

 

"Drug costs are increasing even faster than other medical expenses. Economists say that drug companies -- even foreign ones -- are able to charge American patients a disproportionate share of their research costs. Most European governments bargain prices down to levels that cover companies' manufacturing and distribution costs, but much less of their research."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05...cost-more-in-us.html

 

Foreign drug companies have labs in the US solely for research and marketing.  They develop the drugs in the US, market them in the US with the high cost of research added.  Then, the foreign companies and the US companies can sell in Europe and other areas much cheaper as the research cost were paid by Americans.  So, do we disallow research costs to be passed on in the US or insist on European prices -- knowing that the results will be many fewer new drugs. 

 

BTW, the same NY Times article stated drugs in Europe were, on average, about 52  percent of US costs, not 10 to 20 percent as claimed by some in this thread.  Much cheaper drugs can ne purchased India, for example, but mainly because they are actually placebos.  Years ago, US and European companies were charged with over priced drugs for AIDS marketed in Africa, in comparison with the drugs from India.  Trouble was, when tested, the Indian drugs were fakes. 

jt,

What you see as greed most will see as business..  That does not make it any better, but when you see a charge for medicine, it does not reflect the costs associated with it, such as dispensing and control from the pharmacy.  While I agree the "$15 aspirin" is excessive, the $1000 charge for ER is probably not. The sad fact is that a large number of people use the ER for their family doctor or even their clinic.  Why?  BEcause they have policies that say if they go to the ER the deductible gets absorbed, or they have Medicaid which typically has no copay if they go to tER.  So they will go to the ER at 2 am with the sniffles or a cough they have had for a week.  ER doctors are trained to treat most anything, but they work in an environment where everyone who comes in must be considered truly ill, lest they get raked over in a court of law.  Therefore those who are not sure of the diagnosis will do a large number of tests and xrays to rule out some other cuase. With the use of less specialized providers such as NPs or PAs, this only gets worse. This mess creates a backlog of patients waiting to be seen.  Patients have to be prioritized in order to make sure the truly sick get seen first.  People complain, adminstrators respond by hiring more personel, or adding more equipment, the costs get figured in and before long what should have been a #30 trip to the Doc0in0abox clinic, become a $1200 trip to the ER for a cough that more than likely could have been cured with over the counter cough syrup and three days of rest, and putting down the pack of cigarettes.

When you get your bill, you won't see a charge on there for the care of the nurses, the lab techs who draw the blood, the xray techs who took the films, the cleaning crew who cleaned your room, or the cafeteria people who provided the food, because all of those costs are built into the medications, the treaments, and the daily bed fee.

I don't like it, but I do understand what is going on here.  They truly are not making $15000 on a bottle of aspirin.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×