Only The Rich Get To Live???

[Sean the Nailer]

So, this is part of the headlines here, and it makes me curious. Or am I looking 'far to deep into the premise'?

World’s most expensive drug approved by FDA has multimillion-dollar price tag - National | Globalnews.ca

Hemgenix, by drugmaker CSL Behring, boasts a one-time treatment for hemophilia B, a less common form of the blood-clotting disorder.

globalnews.ca

Seeing as they are specifically talking about reducing 'clots'.... and seeing as how the fashionable trend to follow has an incredibly HIGH amount of 'clotting'.... is this a case of (as the title suggests) only the RICH being able to continue living? Will this drug, like 'viagra' all-the-sudden be surprisingly effective on 'other things' that "we just didn't think about that AT ALL...."

Coincidence? Or am I looking far to into the quagmire to see conspiracies where they simply don't exist? Because nobody would do that to anyone else, ever?

 

[sirhrmechanic]

So a really expensive anti clot-shot shot?

I seem to remember a James Bond movie about this…. Telly Savalas was the bad guy!

Sirhr

 

[StaveyIL]

Might be onto something

 

[Franko]

So, this is part of the headlines here, and it makes me curious. Or am I looking 'far to deep into the premise'?

World’s most expensive drug approved by FDA has multimillion-dollar price tag - National | Globalnews.ca

Hemgenix, by drugmaker CSL Behring, boasts a one-time treatment for hemophilia B, a less common form of the blood-clotting disorder.

globalnews.ca

Seeing as they are specifically talking about reducing 'clots'.... and seeing as how the fashionable trend to follow has an incredibly HIGH amount of 'clotting'.... is this a case of (as the title suggests) only the RICH being able to continue living? Will this drug, like 'viagra' all-the-sudden be surprisingly effective on 'other things' that "we just didn't think about that AT ALL...."

Coincidence? Or am I looking far to into the quagmire to see conspiracies where they simply don't exist? Because nobody would do that to anyone else, ever?

The real irony here is that only US residents pay full price (via our health insurance). We get soaked for this and the rest of the world gets to benefit because they will pay pennies on the dollar...

 

[acudaowner]

is that what the drugs are making them think lol poor babies going to be real say when they wake up with ropes around there necks swinging from trees .

 

[Bender]

Might be onto something View attachment 8006341

Say it with me

 

[supercorndogs]

Two possibilities i can think of.

1. It costs so much, because like the jab, the government will use your money to buy it and distribute it.

2. It costs so much to further stress our healthcare/insurance system when they admit some large percentage of Americans who took or contracted the shot otherwise need it for "life saving treatment," and insurance will go broke paying for it, helping the commie dream of completely destroying our healthcare system used by the poor and leaving us at the whims of socialized medicine.

 

[M4orturnate]

No "conspiracy" is off the table anymore. They're literally committing genocide between the bioweapon and the shot

 

[plh]

The problem being addressed with this therapy is an inability to form a blood clot, "free bleeders", somewhat uncommon. Opposite from Chyna-virus shot effects of over-stimulating a normal clotting mechanism to clot formation and reduced/blocked blood flow with resultant stroke or myocardial infarction.

 

[Rookie]

Read the artical. It's gene therapy to cure a rare genetic condition that PREVENTS clotting, not someone that has clots, regardless of the cause.

Also I can't imagine any insurance company that will cover the 3.5m cost. As a person in the health care field, I see prior authorization required from insurance company before they pay for "high cost meds". Obviously this is that so unless the manufacturer provides some type of copay assistance noone will take this drug at that cost unless they are willing and able to pay.

 

[babyguppy]

Read the artical. It's gene therapy to cure a rare genetic condition that PREVENTS clotting, not someone that has clots, regardless of the cause.

Also I can't imagine any insurance company that will cover the 3.5m cost. As a person in the health care field, I see prior authorization required from insurance company before they pay for "high cost meds". Obviously this is that so unless the manufacturer provides some type of copay assistance noone will take this drug at that cost unless they are willing and able to pay.

as rookie stated......
People with Hemophilia blood does NOT clot up. They can bleed to death from a minor cut. This drug solves that issue.
--An inherited disorder in which the blood does not clot due to insufficient clotting factors
Hemgenix works by delivering a gene for the clotting protein to the liver, where the patient can then produce it themselves.

 

[Short-bus]

I'm confused as to why a company would price a drug like that. They know there is only a handful of people that would pay that for the medication, and then how are you going to recoop your R&D costs, and the costs to get the drug through clinical trials, and approved. Wouldn't the goal be to price it at a point where insurance companies will pay for it, and you can get the broadest range of folks to take the medication? Or am I just applying logic where no logic is intended to be applied?

Branden

 

[pmclaine]

Only poors start threads like this.

I heard you get a six pack of this shit with a weekend at @TheGerman Yellowstone/Brokeback immersive desert experience.

 

[Franko]

I'm confused as to why a company would price a drug like that. They know there is only a handful of people that would pay that for the medication, and then how are you going to recoop your R&D costs, and the costs to get the drug through clinical trials, and approved. Wouldn't the goal be to price it at a point where insurance companies will pay for it, and you can get the broadest range of folks to take the medication? Or am I just applying logic where no logic is intended to be applied?

Branden

My knowledge of this part of the house is somewhat limited but my understanding is that once a drug is FDA approved it has to be covered by insurance (private and public). The insurer can do step therapy (start with the cheapest drug first, second cheapest, third cheapest, etc.) until the new and shockingly expensive one is the only one left that hasn't been tried to address the condition the patient has. Then the insurance has to pay. Now, the insurer isn't going to make the process easy but the drug will be used.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

I'm confused as to why a company would price a drug like that. They know there is only a handful of people that would pay that for the medication, and then how are you going to recoop your R&D costs, and the costs to get the drug through clinical trials, and approved. Wouldn't the goal be to price it at a point where insurance companies will pay for it, and you can get the broadest range of folks to take the medication? Or am I just applying logic where no logic is intended to be applied?

Branden

I think that you are applying logic, BUT, I don't think that is the same logic that the company is applying.

Such as, 'they' are the ones that came up with this medication. NOW, when patients are sick with whatever, since there IS a medication for this, that they might find ALSO works for 'that', there will be further demand and insistence that it be dispensed.

There is now a 'box ticked' as opposed to 'left blank' and others will want to do tests on it for various other illnesses and ailments and such. And the high base-cost of this med will be re-cooped through various means. One way or another, they're going to make money off this. And, they'll be the 'go-to' for many different tangents.

I'm just throwing it all out there, though I am not a medicine-ologist. Just look at it from the perspective of parasitic lawyers as well as other parasitic pharmaceutical companies, etc.

Call it the "parasitic perspective".....

And to (loosely) quote Shakespeare:

"Oh, how I extort thee,,,,, let me count the ways...."

 

[Short-bus]

I think that you are applying logic, BUT, I don't think that is the same logic that the company is applying.

Such as, 'they' are the ones that came up with this medication. NOW, when patients are sick with whatever, since there IS a medication for this, that they might find ALSO works for 'that', there will be further demand and insistence that it be dispensed.

There is now a 'box ticked' as opposed to 'left blank' and others will want to do tests on it for various other illnesses and ailments and such. And the high base-cost of this med will be re-cooped through various means. One way or another, they're going to make money off this. And, they'll be the 'go-to' for many different tangents.

I'm just throwing it all out there, though I am not a medicine-ologist. Just look at it from the perspective of parasitic lawyers as well as other parasitic pharmaceutical companies, etc.

Call it the "parasitic perspective".....

And to (loosely) quote Shakespeare:

"Oh, how I extort thee,,,,, let me count the ways...."

Fair enough, that makes a lot of sense. I knew there had to be something that I wasn't considering in regards to something that's very, very complicated.

Branden