And that is a good thing?No, state insurance commissioners set rates in most states.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And that is a good thing?No, state insurance commissioners set rates in most states.
Efficacy was established long ago. This is not Mexican laetrile.
It's rationing. Even a fanatic like lose stools is arguing its about money.
Efficacy was established by the company to get it fast tracked by the FDA.
Further studies were unable to prove efficacy.
The FDA ruling was made on lack of efficacy, not on cost/benefit.
If you can show proof otherwise (excluding your own opinions, the opinions of other posters, or the opinions expressed in various articles or blogs) that the FDA took into consideration the cost of the medication, then I would be interested in seeing it.
The FDA made a purely political decision, which was delayed after the election.
Regulated monopolies are government.
There are about 3000 insurance carrriers. Heavily government regulated, but hardly a monopoly, yet.
No, state insurance commissioners set rates in most states.
Regulated monopolies are government.
There are about 3000 insurance carrriers. Heavily government regulated, but hardly a monopoly, yet.
There are a handful of insurance companies that dominate every state regulated market. Get a clue.
You can't raise premiums without the state insurance commissioner signing off on it.
You can't raise premiums without the state insurance commissioner signing off on it.
So let's hear your viewpoint. Let's say that Avastin DOES help cancer patients but is VERY expensive. Do you think the drug should still be permitted to be used regardless of what it costs?
Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.
And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.
The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com
Interesting revelation on the conflict of interest angle of Federally Funded Healthcare.
However, I wonder: Given the strength of the Pharma-Lobby (no wet noodle), how do you explain this "Fatal Move From the FDA."
That's how corporate cronyism works.
You folks are so naive.
The insurance companies LOBBY the state Legislatures and get whatever laws they want.
ALL an insurance commisioner can do is enforce the law.
I favor the free market but look what has happened. 1/2 of all premiums do not go for health care.
They go for lobbying, commisions and administration.
Government health care is terrible. Group health care managed by insurance companies is just as bad.
When ANY 3rd party is paying the bill be it government or an insurance company the consumer is not the customer.
Wake up. Until we go back to where YOU PAY THE DAMN BILL, and settle up later with YOUR insurance company or whatever we are fucked.
You folks are so naive.
The insurance companies LOBBY the state Legislatures and get whatever laws they want.
ALL an insurance commisioner can do is enforce the law.
I favor the free market but look what has happened. 1/2 of all premiums do not go for health care.
They go for lobbying, commisions and administration.
Government health care is terrible. Group health care managed by insurance companies is just as bad.
When ANY 3rd party is paying the bill be it government or an insurance company the consumer is not the customer.
Wake up. Until we go back to where YOU PAY THE DAMN BILL, and settle up later with YOUR insurance company or whatever we are fucked.
Lobbying can be stop if the government is forced to stop dealing with lobbist then liberals will not be able to use lobbist as their argument.
Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.
And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, the advisory committee claims its recommendation had nothing to do with Avastin's cost. The FDA's top brass will doubtlessly take the same line and claim that its decision to ratify that recommendation was based solely on the drug's medical efficiency.
The truth is that Avastin is expensive. A year-long supply for breast cancer treatment costs upwards of $80,000.
However, many American women are getting something priceless in return for those dollars: life and vitality. In one clinical trial, nearly 50% of patients receiving Avastin witnessed their tumors shrink. Another study found that patients receiving the drug in conjunction with chemotherapy lived "progression-free" twice as long as patients without it.
What's more, for a select group of "super responders," Avastin can improve life span by years. That can mean years of extra time for, say, a mother to attend her son's soccer games, for a daughter to vacation with her husband, or for a grandmother to watch her grandchildren grow up. ...
The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com
You folks are so naive.
The insurance companies LOBBY the state Legislatures and get whatever laws they want.
ALL an insurance commisioner can do is enforce the law.
I favor the free market but look what has happened. 1/2 of all premiums do not go for health care.
They go for lobbying, commisions and administration.
Government health care is terrible. Group health care managed by insurance companies is just as bad.
When ANY 3rd party is paying the bill be it government or an insurance company the consumer is not the customer.
Wake up. Until we go back to where YOU PAY THE DAMN BILL, and settle up later with YOUR insurance company or whatever we are fucked.
Lobbying can be stop if the government is forced to stop dealing with lobbist then liberals will not be able to use lobbist as their argument.
Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.
And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, the advisory committee claims its recommendation had nothing to do with Avastin's cost. The FDA's top brass will doubtlessly take the same line and claim that its decision to ratify that recommendation was based solely on the drug's medical efficiency.
The truth is that Avastin is expensive. A year-long supply for breast cancer treatment costs upwards of $80,000.
However, many American women are getting something priceless in return for those dollars: life and vitality. In one clinical trial, nearly 50% of patients receiving Avastin witnessed their tumors shrink. Another study found that patients receiving the drug in conjunction with chemotherapy lived "progression-free" twice as long as patients without it.
What's more, for a select group of "super responders," Avastin can improve life span by years. That can mean years of extra time for, say, a mother to attend her son's soccer games, for a daughter to vacation with her husband, or for a grandmother to watch her grandchildren grow up. ...
The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com
My assistant of 17+ years is battling her second round of breast cancer, stage 4, she is 73, she is one of the finest and most genuine human beings I have ever known.....
She has been on Avastin since March 2nd to control the tumors, her Oncologist is very upset they want to remove this option from her regiment, she takes it every three weeks and a chemo pill everyday, some of her tumors are gone and the few that remain are less than 5% of their original size, if you walked into our offices you would never know she was under treatment.....
We truly believe if Obamacare was fully implemented, they would be counseling her now, this is a perfect example of how cost out weighs care.....
Obamacare is flawed, this is a genuine example of it's faults, they better turn this around and turn it around quick, his bad intentions will leave too many without the very best care available today.....