General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums60 Minutes is doing a good story about Cancer drugs price fixing
and the scams going on from the medical industry.
They made some great points. They went after the pharmaceuticals and some of the scheming doctors. But, they didn't mention how the republicans blocked reforming this in the ACA.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Ever wonder why we they haven't developed anything better than the 100 year old model? $$$$$$$$$$$.
Sgent
(5,856 posts)somewhere that makes that level of income on chemo, but not many I know of come close -- in fact most of the oncologists I know shut down their infusion centers and use hospitals because Medicare and Medicaid reimburse lower than the cost of drugs + overhead.
Now, you may find some instances where 75% of billings are chemo, but if your billing $100 and your expenses are $98, your not making that much and are doing it on very tight margins.
brer cat
(24,326 posts)but that small sample agrees with you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/business/12cancerpay.html?ex=1189828800&en=1b49d9a0efe3c01e&ei=5070
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-26/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-cancer-doctorbre8bp0fs-20121226_1_chemotherapy-cancer-doctors-clinical-oncology
The same happens when doctors invest in things like MRIs; the rate of those tests increases when there is profit for the doc. I'm not saying that chemo is unnecessary every time, but it is shown to be effective truly for certain types of cancers such as fast growing ones. But, the cancer industry is so huge, and the investments in our current model so large, that we have not developed a new model in over 100 years, for something that is supposed to be the largest killer on the planet. We have merely refined some of it, but there is no breakthrough or alteration. Why not? There is plenty of evidence that the reason is money.
mucifer
(23,324 posts)Most kids with cancer now survive. The 5 year survival rate for pediatric cancer is 80% in 1975 it was 50%.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood
That is VERY significant.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)What stood out is that some of the cancers listed can be fast growing cancers such as lymphoma and leukemia and those respond best to chemo/radiation. As does breast cancer if caught early. Other cancers that don't respond to chemo at all are still given chemo because that is the standard for treatment.
They also have not found a less invasive or destructive treatment. Here is probably the most promising treatment I've read about: reprogramming T-cells to attack cancer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/health/13gene.html?pagewanted=all
I am sure they are still in testing phases, but I will bet there will be very strong opposition from the cancer establishment because of all the current investment in chemo and radiation (equipment, medicine, etc.) In the meantime, people are dying in horrible ways. Everyone I know who died from cancer, did not actually die of cancer. They died from complications of treatment. The answer from the oncologist usually is, well, they were going to die anyway. So we have a long, long way to go, including trying to stop cancer from forming in the first place.
But here is where it can all go wrong. A doctor was charged with misdiagnosing cancer so he could administer drugs and make a profit. Do I think every oncologist is doing that? No. But having a profit incentive in something so critical can remove objectivity.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014898665
mucifer
(23,324 posts)some doctors get huge kickbacks for choosing more expensive chemotherapy over less costly options that work almost the same. I know the doctors I work with don't do that. But, the 60 minutes story opened my eyes to a few things.
blondie58
(2,570 posts)I would seriously look at marijuana or the Oil at least. I already take medical for help with my multiple sclerosis.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)And the Republicans are thankful for it.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Kudos to those doctors who spoke out and got at least one drug price changed.
Is there anything more corrupt than big pharma?
mucifer
(23,324 posts)the defense department. so many to choose from.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)So true......
moondust
(19,896 posts)Do other countries pay much less for the same drugs because Americans pay so much? Are Americans subsidizing them?