 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Epilepsy / January 2006Medications???
I would like to know something that maybe only a few really know, or maybe more but I sure don't. What is the deal with all the meds under different names but being almost identical. All Benzos Clonazapam Lorazapam diazapam and others. All SSRIs Prozac Zoloft Celexa Paxil and the 100 others or so. Isn't this the pharmacy just reissuing a medication so as to keep that 7 years on it with a slight chemical change. I know that Benzos cause what is called pseudo spindles in the EEG, doesn't matter what Benzo your on. And (all) SSRIs cause what is called Prozac eyes, a pronounced rolling of the eyes during sleep Mo Money Mo Money Mo Money. I am sure there are other types of meds. This is all I know of but it makes me go MMMMMMMM. Mike Howdy Mike! As I understand it, all of the cousins have slight chemical differences. These slight differences make for slight variations of the molecular structures. Some will bond better with your brain cells and others will bond better with mine. You make a good point. In the case of Prilosec, it recently went generic so the drug company turned out Nexium, which is very similar to Prilosec so they could get a name brand back on the market again for another 7 years. Benzodiazipines are different though. Clonazepam worked well for my dystonia, Zanax did nothing. Oxazepam made me sick. So there's differences. Elsea > I would like to know something that maybe only a few really know, or maybe > more but I sure don't. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This is all I know of but it makes me go MMMMMMMM. > Mike Pharmaceutical companies conduct a great deal of research and development, which is very expensive. All the new drugs becoming available don't simply fall from the sky. Seven years for a patent is very short when compared to other industries. Many people seem to be oblivious to the fact that economics applies to medicine. The industry is far too restricted by government regulations already. Screaming that a drug should be made "affordable" doesn't reduce the cost of producing that drug by a single penny. Anyone who doesn't believe this should simply watch in the near future as pharmaceutical companies try to absorb the cost of the US prescription drug plan. Those with epilepsy currently receiving their drugs on special plans - if they aren't elderly - may find they can no longer get their drugs because pharmaceutical companies can no longer afford to continue those plans. > You make a good point. In the case of Prilosec, it recently went > generic so the drug company turned out Nexium, which is very similar to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > differences. > Elsea <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#330033"> <blockquote cite="mid43CA5C64.8050403@intrstar.net" type="cite">Pharmaceutical companies conduct a great deal of research and development, <br> which is very expensive. All the new drugs becoming available don't simply fall from <br> the sky. Seven years for a patent is very short when compared <br> to other industries. <br> <br> Many people seem to be oblivious to the fact that economics applies to medicine. <br> The industry is far too restricted by government regulations already. <br> <br> Screaming that a drug should be made "affordable" doesn't reduce the cost of <br> producing that drug by a single penny. <br> </blockquote> It was more or less ok up to this point.<br> <blockquote cite="mid43CA5C64.8050403@intrstar.net" type="cite">Anyone who doesn't believe this should simply watch in the near future as pharmaceutical <br> companies try to absorb the cost of the US prescription drug plan. Those with epilepsy <br> currently receiving their drugs on special plans - if they aren't elderly - may find <br> they can no longer get their drugs because pharmaceutical companies can no longer <br> afford to continue those plans. <br> </blockquote> You're joking of course? I don't know where you're getting that from, but from everything that I've seen and experienced, the pharmaceutical companies aren't out a nickel in the deal. The brunt of the cost is to the Federal budget deficit aka the American taxpayers and to the patients.<br> <br> We also got a New Year's present from the pharmaceutical companies. The basic monthly cost of my Pfizer Neurontin just went up from $236 to $274, or about a 16% increase. The cost of my Pfizer Dilantin went from $38 to $42, a 31% increase for a drug whose research costs have supposedly been paid off.. Another medication I use went up 35%. I pay a price that's discounted from those numbers, but not all that much lower and still higher than last year, only because of insurance that I pay for out of my own pocket.<br> <br> ticked<br> <br> <br> <br> </body> </html> Well that's all nice and good but capitalism taken to its end means that the rich get the meds and poor and elderly don't. The whole point of this discussion is not that having a drug for 7 years is inappropriate but that having 10 copy cat drugs is inappropriate. I mean really Lexapro comes out as another SSRI and claims to do the exact same thing as Paxil, an SSRI???? How would you feel if you were buying a car and someone told you this car is faster and better except when you took it home it was the same car you bought 7 years prior. Except now you paid a lot more. While I am not a chemist I do see a tremendous amount of copycat drugs where I work. I think there is a tremendous amout of motivation "money that is" to repeat these drugs again and again. They lobby very strong in Congress and send a lot salesman to all the doctors offices for a reason. Generally the very nature of health care is altruistic. These drug companies are not. They are seen more like insurance companies where the bottom line is only the dollar. > Pharmaceutical companies conduct a great deal of research and development, > which is very expensive. All the new drugs becoming available don't [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> differences. >> Elsea > Well that's all nice and good but capitalism taken to its end means that the > rich get the meds and poor and elderly don't. Good summary of Karl Marx's definition of capitalism. >> The whole point of this discussion is not that having a drug for 7 years is >> inappropriate but that having 10 copy cat drugs is inappropriate. Who gets to decide what is "appropriate" FOR THE PATIENT if not the patient and their doctor? Any doctor will know that two drugs are identical, as well as any pharmacist. Your concern about copycat drugs is fear-mongering. > These drug companies are not [altruistic]. They are seen more like insurance companies where the bottom line is only the dollar. It's good that someone is looking out for the bottom line. Where health care is involved, many patients certainly are not. Most patients simply do not know what it costs for an office visit to their doctor. They know how much their co-pay is, but not the true bill. I had an exchange in this newsgroup a year or two ago with a man from Canada who asked why the US didn't pass "Universal" health care so that everyone would be assured of having their health needs met. He told me that he could call his neurologist and see him any time he wanted. It was only several messages later that he grudgingly confided that he hadn't seen his neurologist in 7 years, even though he was still receiving medication under this doctor's prescription. Seven years! There is much that needs to be fixed about the current state of health care in the US. "Universal" health care will only lead to a rationing of health services, out-migration of skilled health care workers, and lower overall quality of health. Current examples are England, Canada, and Tennessee. > Well that's all nice and good but capitalism taken to its end means that the > rich get the meds and poor and elderly don't. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > They are seen more like insurance companies where the bottom line is only > the dollar. Ahead of Christmas, I had occasion to need another repeat of the pills I use (mentioned in earlier post above-- my Neuro had been refilling my Anti-seizures meds by phone since my last seizure in 1998). My Neuro's office told the pharmacy, since I hadn't had need to see him in person, that he wanted to transfer my file back to my Family Doctor who referred me to him. I called my Family Doctor the next morning at 10 AM. At 130PM (that day) he wrote me replacement prescriptions for my Tegretol CR and Frisium, and I had them filled at my Pharmacy that afternoon. I picked them up the next day.. Socialized medicine at work. G./ > Ahead of Christmas, I had occasion to need another repeat of the pills > I use (mentioned in earlier post above-- my Neuro had been refilling my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Frisium, and I had them filled at my Pharmacy that afternoon. I picked > them up the next day.. Socialized medicine at work. G./ Pretty much the same way it will work in Norway, where we have got a health care system that is a remnant of the social democracy we had in our country since 1945 up to the 70's (and then from last autumn on again). For an eight year period a conservative government would try to privatize parts of the health care system, which would (partly) lead to health institutions with some highly qualified personell, but economically within reach only for the few, or those willing to take expensive loans. Well, perhaps not all that bad, but there was an obvious tendency. Also, the health system makes sure that noone will have to pay more that approx. $250/yr. The government will take care of the rest. The system is still far from perfect, but the most part of the Norwegians can afford getting seriously ill, without relying on their private insurances. Socialized society at work. ole k >> Ahead of Christmas, I had occasion to need another repeat of the pills >> I use (mentioned in earlier post above-- my Neuro had been refilling my [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > private insurances. > Socialized society at work. The capitalistic society in the US helped take care of me. I got help from both the Government and individual corporations. Getting help from the Government was the most difficult because of all the red-tape and arrogant clerks. I'm glad socialism helped you, but not everybody agrees with some of the other issues.  SignatureDave Keays If the government takes care of the rest, then $250 is not the upper limit. G, where do you think the Norwegian government gets the funds to pay for health care? > Also, the health system makes sure that noone will >> have to pay more that approx. $250/yr. The government will take care of >> the rest. I asked G, but it looks like that's gomper's quote. Also, good to hear, G, that socialism works for you. Many in Canada want to see a doctor and can't. > Socialized medicine at work. G./ > If the government takes care of the rest, then $250 is not the upper limit. > > G, where do you think the Norwegian government gets the funds to pay for > health care? Where do they live? There are waiting lists in some areas (new communities), many closer to resource development, away from major population centres, but the system is now in about its 44th year. There are also stresses in the 5 major Cities where new Canadians move to, and add to stresses on the system because of previous Government cutbacks to balance their various budgets at the expense of the weak or elderly. Also if there aren't enough residency spots when Doctors or Nurses finish Med.School, they go to the U.S. When they graduate they can come back here and work at a Capped Income, or work in the U.S. for (U.S.) Cash. Most are staying down there. (That was from my Neuro in 1997, when he had his 3rd resident sitting-in, with our session back then, when I saw him more often.) It's us Baby Boomers, here, U.S. and U.K. who will start to increase the demand in next 10 years. But that was predicted and should have been planned for. The Limits of Growth was probably one of the earliest books on that, there are lots more now on Economics, Globalism, that explain a lot of that. The new Conservative Government just elected (this week), you'd know, have promised to fix any backlogs, waiting lists, residency spots, medical supports, homecare, a puppy for every child and cookies and chocolates for everyone who voted for them. Time will tell. As one of the Finance Ministers said years ago, changing Supports and Government Policy is a little like turning an Ocean Liner with a half dozen oars... G./ It sounds like you're happy with: a doctor who writes a prescription for you without ever seeing you; (maybe that's related to the physician shortage, do you think?) politicians deciding the health care you should and should not receive. By the way, the idea of corporate taxes is a myth. Corporations don't pay taxes. They simply charge more for their goods and services, and the consumer pays it for them - in addition to what they already pay in their own individual taxes to the government. I'm happy that I don't live in Canada. :) > But that was predicted and should have > been planned for. The Limits of Growth was probably one of the > earliest books on that, there are lots more now on Economics, > Globalism, that explain a lot of that. > Ask him how Norway pays for > their healthcare. > Probably through Income and Corporate taxes like I do here. So am I. A course in basic economic theory would show how taxes get collected/redistributed based on priorities that are set either by citizens or politicians. If you had read the other thread, you'd have seen a post where I said I called my Family Doctor the next morning (when the Neurologist wanted to transfer my file back to him), saw him at 1PM, handed the Fresh Prescriptions to the Drug store at 3PM (Paper copy) and picked them up next day. (The earlier neurologist was the one who admitted me to *hospital in 1993 (onset date), and 2 other times from then to 1995. To 1997 I saw him each 1-3 months depending on level of seizure control and med. changes, and he renewed the scripts by phone-- we have those up here-- as my doses varied but not the medication. I saw him when I had my *last Complex Partial seizure in 1998 and was struck by a car.) . He renewed my prescriptions each 100 days, direct to the pharmacy since I didn't have further seizures (I've only posted this now about *5 times). Then, as I hadn't had further seizures for several years, but am still medicated for them, he transferred my file back to my Family Doctor, who had referred me to him to start with, when the seizures began.) You should ask for a shareholder's report from Exxon or another U.S. company and see the parts about Federal taxes, Payroll taxes, etc. paid. When you buy gas at the pumps, not only will you see Exxon paying taxes on their income, but there's federal tax already buried in the Pump Price you're paying, as with clothes, food, anything you buy or consume. The fact that you pay for products that others sell is how the system works. Whether you exchange deer skins, coloured stones, or paper money, doesn't change the fundamentals of basic economic theory, mentioned above.. The choices that arise are merely if you let the people you elect redistribute the money to people who need it, for eldercare or medicare, or whether you let them build more missiles. A lot of cash probably gets 'lost' between ordering a jet plane, and having it delivered to a battle front. Who do you think pays those lobbyists? But that's getting off topic too. G./ It was ole's quote, who lives in Norway. Ask him how Norway pays for their healthcare. Probably through Income and Corporate taxes like I do here. G./ G. skrev: > It was ole's quote, who lives in Norway. Ask him how Norway pays for > their healthcare. > Probably through Income and Corporate taxes like I do here. G./ Yup. Although quite a few will claim the taxation level is too high, I even pay my taxes with a smile, knowing that I am not only sort of paying for my own welfare, but also for others'. But like I wrote in my previous post, the system is far from perfect, lots of money disappear on the way into over-administration etc, but on the whole, it works pretty well. Also, Norway is the third richest country in the world (only beaten by Luxembourg and Qatar. That is, compared with the number of citizens.). All this due to the rich oil resources in the North Sea. And that helps. Signature/\, ole kvaal And in neither of our countries does someone need to become bankrupt if they get a surprise illness, or need healthcare. G./ > G. skrev: >> It was ole's quote, who lives in Norway. Ask him how Norway pays for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Luxembourg and Qatar. That is, compared with the number of citizens.). > All this due to the rich oil resources in the North Sea. And that helps. I would not feel comfortable with that system unless the society was small and manageable. I would feel even more comfortable on a commune where I new everybody and everybody knew me. But the tremendous diversity in America (culture, knowledge, wealth, attitudes) make it difficult if not impossible for me to think that my money is being spent in a way that would minimize anothers pain. Or would it massage the politician/bureaucrat PR/ego. I don't like to be forced to pay/provide for assistance that I'm not sure is helpful. That is why I'm staying where I am, doing what I can, enjoying it, and once I get back on my feet I'll be giving money to kitchens on the streets in LA. I hope you enjoy your society as much as I'm enjoying mine! SignatureDave Keays I mentioned earlier it's been in place since about 1960 (46 years). Probably one difference between the 2 systems (you'd have to know how the US one is run), is the Canada one the Healthcare money is collected at the Federal Level, then partitioned to each Province based on population, need, current profiles and payscales of those who can afford to pay more. Each Province runs their own Medical System, so long as it's within Guidelines required by the Federal Health Department. Any bureaucracies then occur at *that level, and not one Big Brother Central, as some of you seem to assume. Some provinces currently have shorter wait times than others. Some already provide a Pharmacare plan, for prescriptions and rehab. appliances, that others haven't adopted yet (most Companies provide those as taxable benefits to employees, and have since above date). We've had a non-taxed Dental program at most large companies since 1974 or so. Our new Prime Minister has promised to give priority in his first year to setting up improved, measurable, ElderCare, expanded Medicare that *might (he hasn't said yet) include Prescription plans for all Provinces, so that everyone has access to them, again managed by each Province to Federal standards. The only reason that the Provinces get control of Funding and how services are delivered, is Quebec is 70% French and insists on running their own plans, independent but funded by Federal and Provincial tax base. In many respects they are ahead of some provinces in benefits they provide, in part from having a larger population base and Corporate Head Offices who carry a higher part of the tax load. But the balancing from the Top, allows improved care for people who happen to live in smaller Provinces with smaller populations, so less Tax Base to draw on. A further area that is planned for attention is the 5-6 Large Metropolitan areas where new Canadians come first and whose hospitals, transit, services, and medical needs have not been adequately funded over the last ~15 years by a previous government (now gone), but who eliminated a ~300 Million Dollar annual deficit. New plans will be put into place, without borrowing from our children, to fund what we've been used to these last 40 years. That's different from other countries who print more money, as needed, not recognizing the long term effect of having a crushing debt their kids will inherit, or how it devalues money already in circulation. I just watched a TV show that said that in 2008 China will be manufacturing Automobiles with better emission standards for $8000 Canadian. That's about $6400 U.S. Which car plants will be able to compete with that? End rambling as I'm getting more off topic. G./ So now I know more about the Canadian system. I used to think it was a criddle to grave system (I think) they have in Germany. It's good to hear it is a de-centralized system that allows for contributions from outside the system (companies). It is much more like a "safety net" I think society needs, and FDR set up in the US. The next thing that I have to affirm as true or a myth is the cost of other countries pharmaceutical care in US dollars. Basically, 70% to 80% of pharmaceutical innovations comes from the US who has to carry the RD load themselves. RD is a tremendous expense in drug companies. The degree of perfection required. The series of tests required before any human consumption. Then more testing before it is available for mass consumption. The cost of RD is usually reflected on by stretching the pricing out to several years. So now after an American drug company finally got a new drug on the market, many countries will undermine their long-term pricing by selling items for a subsidized below market price. Bottom-line; most people benefit, most carry their share of the immediate cost of the drug, but the drug companies shoulder the RD costs. SignatureDave Keays > So now after an American drug company finally got a new drug on the market, many > countries will undermine their long-term pricing by selling items for a > subsidized below market price. The drug company is still making a profit at the negotiated price, just not as large a profit. They wouldn't sell there at all if it was at a loss. > Bottom-line; most people benefit, most carry > their share of the immediate cost of the drug, but the drug companies shoulder > the RD costs. That has to come out of somebody's pocket and that's the US consumer in terms of higher prices than elsewhere. Don't forget also that a lot of the R&D is funded by government and that comes out of the US taxpayer's pocket. Please try to cut and paste more accurately. The earlier post where you wrote this above, was an inept cut from an earlier post, done by Dave Keays, as you noted, *quoting me*. When you picked it up says "G said... " the part of mine he quoted was cut out completely, and stuff you left in was his post "so now after an American drug company finally got a new drug to market etc". isn't my quote.. It's the reply he did where he Included my stuff with G.wrote, but you cut My stuff and left his reply. I didn't write the stuff you then replied to. G./ Part you posted is included below --> G. wrote: **************************** I'm the one living in Canada, I didn't write below. So now I know more about the Canadian system. I used to think it was a criddle to grave system (I think) they have in Germany. It's good to hear it is a de-centralized system that allows for contributions from outside the system (companies). It is much more like a "safety net" I think society needs, and FDR set up in the US. The next thing that I have to affirm as true or a myth is the cost of other countries pharmaceutical care in US dollars. Basically, 70% to 80% of pharmaceutical innovations comes from the US who has to carry the RD load themselves. RD is a tremendous expense in drug companies. The degree of perfection required. The series of tests required before any human consumption. Then more testing before it is available for mass consumption. The cost of RD is usually reflected on by stretching the pricing out to several years. So now after an American drug company finally got a new drug on the market, many countries will undermine their long-term pricing by selling items for a subsidized below market price. Bottom-line; most people benefit, most carry their share of the immediate cost of the drug, but the drug companies shoulder the RD costs. -- > Please try to cut and paste more accurately. > The earlier post where you wrote this above, was an inept cut from an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but you cut My stuff and left his reply. I didn't write the stuff > you then replied to. G./ [snip] G. I'm sorry I screwed-up this one. This is not partials fault. When looking back I found that my post has the line "G said:" without your words. I either completely cut your words out or I left the "G. said" line. SignatureDave Keays > Please try to cut and paste more accurately. I'm sorry about that GR and I really should have caught it and I can assure you that it wasn't intentional. In a later post I see that Dave is graciously attempting to accept part of the responsibility, but it was my post and my snafu and I accept full responsibility. Please accept my apology and let's put this behind us and get on with the discussion. :-) My last message quoted from your two most recent posts to me, both of which were written wholly by you and contained no quotations. The problems of quoting from nested passages have been noted already. I only recently joined and did not receive some of the original messages. Thanks for the reminder. > Please try to cut and paste more accurately. > The earlier post where you wrote this above, was an inept cut from an [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > the RD costs. > -- >> So now after an American drug company finally got a new drug on the >> market, many >> countries will undermine their long-term pricing by selling items for a >> subsidized below market price. These are my arguments, not Gs. I messed-up and made it look like G was making the statements about American drug Companies. She explained the Canadian medical system and I responded with my understanding of the American drug companies. Now let me go on and respond to your responses. > The drug company is still making a profit at the negotiated price, just > not as large a profit. They wouldn't sell there at all if it was at a loss. The question isn't whether or not the drug companies are making a profit, but whether or not the profit is enough to recover their RD expenses. Then there is the effect this will have on the market. Since American companies are competing against foreign companies with a smaller long-term costs, the American companies would have less of market percentage. >> Bottom-line; most people benefit, most carry >> their share of the immediate cost of the drug, but the drug companies [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the R&D is funded by government and that comes out of the US taxpayer's > pocket. Yes, the US consumer prices would be one target, but I still say the drug companies would be another. As far as subsidized drugs. That's one issue I'm not sure of. I don't like the government interfering in the private market, but I understand the need to help so that a drug can get on the market. We are talking about more than just Economic issues here, but the Libertarian in me still screams bloody murder. SignatureDave Keays > Now let me go on and respond to your responses. >> The drug company is still making a profit at the negotiated price, just >> not as large a profit. They wouldn't sell there at all if it was at a loss. > > The question isn't whether or not the drug companies are making a profit, but > whether or not the profit is enough to recover their RD expenses. That's just another way of saying that they may be selling at a loss. I give them credit for being smarter than that. Perhaps we haven't defined our terms? > Then there is > the effect this will have on the market. Since American companies are competing > against foreign companies with a smaller long-term costs, the American companies > would have less of market percentage. I don't understand. Are you comparing American companies selling *brand-name* drugs against foreign companies selling *generics* or foreign companies selling their own "brand-names*? >>> Bottom-line; most people benefit, most carry >>> their share of the immediate cost of the drug, but the drug companies [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, the US consumer prices would be one target, but I still say the drug > companies would be another. But they knowingly enter these agreements. The Veterans Administration negotiates price breaks for their hospitals. The Canadian government negotiates price breaks. If those prices represent a loss then why do they sell at those prices? Why not say no, this is our price? > As far as subsidized drugs. That's one issue I'm not sure of. I don't like the > government interfering in the private market, but I understand the need to help > so that a drug can get on the market. We are talking about more than just > Economic issues here, but the Libertarian in me still screams bloody murder. Subsidies only encourage the continuation of wasteful practices if that's what they are. They also come out of the taxpayers' pocket. > > Now let me go on and respond to your responses. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > give them credit for being smarter than that. Perhaps we haven't defined > our terms? In other parts of the post I emphasized "long-term". In essence I mean an expenditure that is probably amortized over a period of time. For example; when you buy a building does that only effect your profits for the first year or for many? When comparing the amount posted on a "balance sheet" to the amount of money going in/out of a pocket, it would result in a larger profit the first year and a smaller profit for the rest of the amortization period. Also, it is not unusual for a company to sell a product at a loss on one market which covers some of the expenses and may increase "brand recognition" (PR) thereby improving both sales and the profit in other markets. >> Then there is >> the effect this will have on the market. Since American companies are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *brand-name* drugs against foreign companies selling *generics* or > foreign companies selling their own "brand-names*? I would think it would be both. Without the RD, the drugs wouldn't be used safely. However, I'm not sure about international patents so I don't know where the limits are when it comes to "brand-names vs. brand-name". >>>> Bottom-line; most people benefit, most carry >>>> their share of the immediate cost of the drug, but the drug companies [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > negotiates price breaks. If those prices represent a loss then why do > they sell at those prices? Why not say no, this is our price? See above, about selling at a loss in one market. [snip] SignatureDave Keays > So now I know more about the Canadian system. I used to think it was a criddle > to grave system (I think) they have in Germany. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > pharmaceutical innovations comes from the US who has to carry the RD load > themselves. Why would the Dollar values elsewhere help confrim above? Most pharmaceuticals are likely manufactured in the countries they're used. Why would you think Italy or Germany would ship meds. around the world from the US? We had an earlier thread about shelf life and quality controls affecting whether a pill is ineffective or not. Why would I want a pill manufactured somewhere that doesn't have same standards as my country? If the Copyright or Developer of a med. was based in France, they would get the Fees for use of the copyright, for a number of years (20? I don't recall what standard Worldwide period is). I'm sure Hoesch Roessel (sp?) and companies doing research in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Canada and other countries would be surprised to find that the US is doing '70-80% of the research in the World.. And in most cases, discussed here a year ago, the cost of what you pick up at the Pharmacy (if that's the Dollar basis you plan to use), has a Dispensing Fee included in it. One survey done in Canada about 7 years ago found **that part of the Cost of a bottle of pills could vary from around $10 for Walmart up to $14-15 at other places. So that would skew any comparison of eg. a $30 bottle of pills you pick up. (Mine are 2 types at $75. and $66. for 200, plus a Dispense fee of $12 for each of the 2 bottles. My insurer pays 80% of that, mentioned before, that becomes Taxable as Income to me. Others have insurers who pay Less, Seniors in some Provinces pay Nothing for their meds., and people below a certain income level-- Subject line above-- so wouldn't know the cost to compare with your survey. Many of the people who'd pay nothing don't even get a receipt, unless possibly at year-end, to confirm that the Pharmacy didn't overbill for pills not received. ) G./ RD is a tremendous expense in drug companies. The degree of > perfection required. The series of tests required before any human consumption. > Then more testing before it is available for mass consumption. The cost of RD is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the RD costs. > Dave Keays ** The formula for the Patented Pill, before Generics are allowed, isn't released until whatever the period is, that's first allowed to the Drug Developer -- 10 years? G./ ) [snip] >> The next thing that I have to affirm as true or a myth is the cost of other >> countries pharmaceutical care in US dollars. Basically, 70% to 80% of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > want a pill manufactured somewhere that doesn't have same standards as > my country? If most medications were manufactured in the country they were used in, then why was "reimportation" of drugs a big issue in the US a couple of years ago? Some wanted to be able to buy American made prescription drugs off lower-cost markets and resell them in America. I think the standards apply to products sold so consumers in one country would get medication that met the safety standards of that country. No matter where the medication was produced. > If the Copyright or Developer of a med. was based in France, they > would get the Fees for use of the copyright, for a number of years (20? > I don't recall what standard Worldwide period is). I just plain don't know. By the way, I think it would be patented, not copyrighted. > I'm sure Hoesch Roessel (sp?) and companies doing research in Germany, > Norway, Sweden, Italy, Canada and other countries would be surprised to > find that the US is doing '70-80% of the research in the World.. The 70%-80% figure is from my memory of an article by either Thomas Sowell at Hoover Institute or Walter Williams at CATO. Since I can't find a direct reference. In my mind the numbers are in question but the idea is still intact. > And in most cases, discussed here a year ago, the cost of what you > pick up at the Pharmacy (if that's the Dollar basis you plan to use), [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > confirm that the Pharmacy didn't overbill for pills not received. ) > G./ I didn't know there was a question about whether prices were higher in the US or in Canada. It seems to be a common theme in almost every article I've read about the situation, no matter how they think the situation should be handled. > RD is a tremendous expense in drug companies. The degree of >> perfection required. The series of tests required before any human consumption. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > isn't released until whatever the period is, that's first allowed to > the Drug Developer -- 10 years? G./ ) I don't know. True, an adequate "patent time" (?) would reduce the impact of the situation but other factors are involved. SignatureDave Keays Dave Keays skrev: >> G. skrev: >>> It was ole's quote, who lives in Norway. Ask him how Norway pays for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > me to think that my money is being spent in a way that would minimize anothers > pain. I get your point very well, and I agree. > I don't like to be forced to pay/provide for assistance that I'm not sure is > helpful. That is why I'm staying where I am, doing what I can, enjoying it, and > once I get back on my feet I'll be giving money to kitchens on the streets in LA. > > I hope you enjoy your society as much as I'm enjoying mine! I'm sure I do! :-) Signature/\, ole kvaal > There is much that needs to be fixed about the current state of health > care in the US. "Universal" health > care will only lead to a rationing of health services, out-migration of > skilled health care workers, and lower > overall quality of health. > Current examples are England, Canada, and Tennessee. On what evidence do you base your sweeping generalisations ? Chris L. At present I am taking 4 drugs and seeing my G.P.- sometimes as frequently as once a week, a consultant psychiatrist-once a month if necessary, a consultant neurologist-every 6 months, a community psychiatric nurse (CPN - varying frequencies. He's not very good but is labelled my 'key worker') and an occupational therapist (OT-varying frequency and others have been for a lot longer period. This is the one area where the NHS is trying to reduce their service and not offer any OT outside hospitals). I also see someone from each of 2 charities - a local Employment Access Trust and a local Family Support Project which is also helping my husband when he needs it as my carer. Perhaps I shouldn't have reacted so strongly because I live in Scotland not England ! On 22 Jan, christal@orpheusmail.co.uk wrote: > > There is much that needs to be fixed about the current state of health > > care in the US. "Universal" health > > care will only lead to a rationing of health services, out-migration of > > skilled health care workers, and lower > > overall quality of health. > > Current examples are England, Canada, and Tennessee. > On what evidence do you base your sweeping generalisations ? > Chris L. > At present I am taking 4 drugs and seeing my G.P.- sometimes as frequently > as once a week, a consultant psychiatrist-once a month if necessary, a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for a lot longer period. This is the one area where the NHS is trying to > reduce their service and not offer any OT outside hospitals). > I also see someone from each of 2 charities - a local Employment Access > Trust and a local Family Support Project which is also helping my husband > when he needs it as my carer. > Perhaps I shouldn't have reacted so strongly because I live in Scotland > not England ! I forgot to say that I don't have to pay directly for any of these only through indirect taxes. Chris L. >> Well that's all nice and good but capitalism taken to its end means that the >> rich get the meds and poor and elderly don't. > > Good summary of Karl Marx's definition of capitalism. Do you work in our health care system with direct patient contact? The poor get crappy care generally speaking. I am not poor nor a minority but I do see it happen all the time.The ER is filled with the poor because they can't afford to go see a doctor so they wait and wait and wait and end up in the ER. That's why ERs don't make money. Are you old yet so that your on SS? Have you been so sick as to loose your job and insurance and be tossed aside? Our health care needs major reform. Should we be just like Canada, no, but we should change. >>> The whole point of this discussion is not that having a drug for 7 years >>> is inappropriate but that having 10 copy cat drugs is inappropriate. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their doctor? Any doctor will know that two drugs are identical, as well > as any pharmacist. You are not in our health care system if you believe this. Doctors and Pharmacists are not chemists nor do they have the time to do research. Some doctors can't even afford to be doctors because the insurance they require is way to high. Did you know that the FDA does not test drugs but only reviews the testing the drug companies do for themselves. In other words they take their word for it. >It's good that someone is looking out for the bottom line. Where health >care is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >their co-pay >is, but not the true bill. The bottom line is our responsibility and no one else's. Having the government, Aetna or Merck looking at my bottom line, sorry, not for me. They have other agendas. I always try to look out for myself or to tell the patients what they need to do to get the best care. Do I have a negative slant on things? Yes but when it comes to me, I am looking out for myself. That's the advantage of being British. Because my condition is permanent and incurable, I get all my prescriptions free. As I'm also labelled disabled for other purposes, I also get a free bus pass from my local authority (which will now take me to anywhere in Scotland) and reduce my train fares too. There are often reductions on all sorts of things such as theatre tickets (which I don't claim because I want to support our local one). Chris L. > Pharmaceutical companies conduct a great deal of research and development, > which is very expensive. All the new drugs becoming available don't > simply fall from > the sky. Seven years for a patent is very short when compared > to other industries. > Many people seem to be oblivious to the fact that economics applies to > medicine. > The industry is far too restricted by government regulations already. > Screaming that a drug should be made "affordable" doesn't reduce the cost of > producing that drug by a single penny. > Anyone who doesn't believe this should simply watch in the near future > as pharmaceutical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no longer > afford to continue those plans. Yes, benzodiazepines are different drugs. I take clabazam (sold as Frisium) to help me sleep and used to take diazepam as an anti-convulsant. Chris L. > You make a good point. In the case of Prilosec, it recently went > generic so the drug company turned out Nexium, which is very similar to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > differences. > Elsea All I know about the different trade name versions of the same drug is that even the small differences may affect you. e.g. I know someone who reacted to the different colouring on two capsules. Chris L. > I would like to know something that maybe only a few really know, or maybe > more but I sure don't. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This is all I know of but it makes me go MMMMMMMM. > Mike That's a given. Allergic reactions happen all the time for many reasons with medications. I am talking about the chemical active ingredient not the inert ingredients. I guess I am just a cynic but I think I have a good reason to be. There are reasons that I think I am wrong too. Like lots of SSRIs can increase your susceptibility to seizures but a SSRI like Celexa is safer for that purpose. Whos research are they going by and how many people were in the study? I wonder about that and would like to know why. Guess I will have to become an MD in my next life. > All I know about the different trade name versions of the same drug is > that even the small differences may affect you. > e.g. I know someone who reacted to the different colouring on two > capsules. > > Chris L. Just looked over this site on all the chemical names of the meds and I have realized today for the 10th time that I don't have a clue :-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > That's a given. Allergic reactions happen all the time for many reasons > with medications. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> Chris L.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.