child dies after workers refuse to fix his medicaid record

[Xchel]

you point to cases against pharmacists not doctors.

 

[geauxtohell]

Fucking A, who pissed in your wheaties this morning?

Well, the cases are out there if you want them. Get your practicing wife to look them up on WestLaw.

My wife has better things to do, and using the court's Westlaw subscription for an internet squabble is not an appropriate use of taxpayer's dollars.

Dear lord, you were the one that dumped 10,000 cases on my head from a site that requires a $395 bill. Do you have access? Why don't you provide the relevant cases. It is your claim. Are you just going for "death by bandwidth"?

There are many of them. I haven't decided if you are displaying arrogance or just lack of knowledge.

At first I was truly interested in learning something. Now I am just annoyed.

I doubt a law clerk has a great handle on the entire spectrum of medical malpractice of which informed consent is a big part.

She also practiced, now she's a judicial clerk. I don't know if you mean to sound so patronizing, but she has passed the bar and has a license to practice. From what I gather, you do not and may not have ever practiced. So she had her hand in med mal cases for about 4 years.

At any rate, as I said, it doesn't make her an expert, but for whatever her time was worth she didn't think the world of med mal was ripe with "informed consent cases" that didn't involve procedures.

Right now you are learning medicine. But you will not succeed unless you learn to cover your ass. And right now you don't know how, nor apparently do your mentors.

My mentors are outstanding. As for your competence, I just have to take your word for it. Thank God the approach they take is simply in trying to do what is right and not "we do this to cover our ass". Do you need to order a CT if someone comes in with a white count and a hot abdomen and a classic story for appendicitis? Absolutely not. Is it malpractice to if you do an appy and find a normal abdomen that a CT might have demonstrated? Absolutely not.

The day will come when you work somewhere that is accredited and you will find that your accrediting body will DEMAND that your facility DEMAND its providers to give informed consent. Any idea where those accrediting bodies like the JCAHO get their standards? Think about it!~ Every new standard follows on the heels of some case or other.

Do you think my current institution and the attached hospital isn't accredited? Also, I have never doubted the legitimacy of informed consent. I have doubted that its scope extends to what you and Cecille apparently think it does.

I have stated repeatedly that I do not practice law. But I do have my own seminar company and I teach these concepts to others. Teaching law does not require a license. I did not go to law school to practice, and most people who get the JD do not practice. Many people get the JD to become better and more knowledgeable in their current professions.

I guess I lost track of your CV. Anyways, good for you. I respect people that seek knowledge.

And yes you misspelled consent a couple of times.

You are right. I made one typo. I say typo, because I spelled it correctly in the same post and every subsequent time before you decided to become obnoxious about the ordeal. If you want to be a jack ass though, then by all means, can I just pay my Grammar Ticket now and avoid an annoying appearance in Grammar Court?

 

[frazzledgear]

The drug company was in the big middle of it. This isn't about what should be, it's about what is in place, and how error killed this child in spite of his mother's concerted efforts to get him medicine that was prescribed and by law, he was entitled to receive. This is a matter for a court of law, not the kangaroo court of public opinion.

Ok, but state law, the one I quoted, also says she can be prosecuted for abuse/neglect. And drug companies make drugs, they have nothing to do with county, state, or federal welfare programs. And other then filling out paper work, nothing is said about what the mother did or was doing between the time the boy ran out of meds, and when he died.

You don't think after she went to the pharmacy numerous times to fill a prescription for which her son needed to be healthy, the son died from his human error lack of medicine, this poor creature lost her son, so some cheapskate comes up with the brilliant idea to jail the woman who tried to get help for her son to punish her further?

Double jeopardy, fella.

Why assume she went to the pharmacy several times when she already knew the screw up did not occur there? It doesn't say that and she isn't suing the pharmacy. She is suing the state and state employees -not any pharmaceutical company and she wouldn't have grounds to sue them anyway. The pharmacy is not a magical place where they just hand out drugs for free to whoever has the best sob story that day. They MUST follow the law regarding prescription medications or face felony charges! There is no such thing as using "discretion" and just handing it out for free!

When the woman was told Medicaid refused to cover it she could have just paid for it herself -emergency inhalers cost as little as $20 and can almost always be substituted for the cheaper generic. Any doctor hearing she would be paying for it out of pocket would have made sure it was the least expensive one possible. She CHOSE not to pay for it herself. Not even ONE time. For MONTHS. What is it you people don't get about that? Just because she had Medicaid doesn't mean she had no access to his medication -it meant she CHOSE not to buy it herself out of her own pocket while trying to get the mistake fixed. For MONTHS. Even though she knew for a fact if he didn't have it the risk he would die during an acute attack SHARPLY INCREASED. So let's not pretend she was shocked when he died -she KNEW for a fact he was extremely likely to die. And he did.

This is not an issue where the pharmacy screwed up because they didn't -their hands were tied on this. This really isn't an issue about government health care either because these mistakes occur under any system both private and public (although based on other countries it is a much more common one under government health care systems).

This is about a woman who refused to give her child at least the same level of care she would have given herself. As if because she used a government entitlement program meant she was allowed to deny her son his life-saving medication so she could spend that $20 elsewhere -and she clearly valued spending it on ANYTHING but her son's medication. Just ONCE in all those months. And now she wants to be enriched for it -also at taxpayer expense.

What is it some of you don't get about this? Using a government entitlement program doesn't shift your responsibility to your kid off on strangers or government or some pharmacy or anyone or anything else. It doesn't mean you just got a free pass to deny him his life-saving medication because you had to buy it once out of your own pocket instead of getting it for free. Getting entitlements doesn't mean you don't have to spend your money on your kid if it is necessary! And it was necessary this time -but she CHOSE not to do it. We aren't talking about expensive chemo or something but a CHEAP EMERGENCY INHALER. Not even talking about buying his maintenance medications -just the CHEAP EMERGENCY INHALER. Just to make sure he didn't kick the bucket during the next acute attack. And SHE refused to do that. WHO DOES THAT?

You only need to know the answer to one question to decide whether she should be awarded a bunch of taxpayer money for this:

Would she have coughed up the $20 for HER life-saving medication in all those MONTHS? Does anyone in their right mind really believe this woman would have refused to pay $20 for her life-saving medication? Spend $20 just once and live -or refuse to spend it and die. Not much choice there, is there? Of course she would have bought it for herself. WE ALL KNOW IT because everyone here would have done that too -it is what any reasonable person would have done.

This is where some of you apparently get really, really lost but try to follow me here. Since we all know she would have spent that $20 for her own life-saving medication -then she owed her kid at the very minimum the exact same thing she would have done for herself. Because he couldn't do it for himself. That is the MINIMAL level of care a parent OWES their child -to do at the very least for their child as they would have done for themselves in the same situation. Because their child cannot do it for himself yet. Gee, looks like parenting is a bit more involved than just popping out a kid. Can't just stick them in a box when you are tired of playing mommy. A parent must do for his child what they would do for themselves -because their child cannot do it for himself! Get that one? That is what a parent would naturally do anyway -but it is also what a parent is OBLIGATED to do. Even when its inconvenient. Even when its a pain in the ass. Even when it means you don't get to spend that $20 on getting your hair fixed this week or new shoes or fast food or whatever. We are talking about buying a $20 emergency inhaler just ONCE in all those months -which have between 100-250 doses and would have saved his life.

But what she CHOSE to do was something any self-centered, callous, cold-hearted bitch could have done. She took the easy out which meets with the approval of liberals of course but not normal people. She chose zero doses knowing it would never save his life and in fact would likely end it. I have serious questions about her refusal to buy his inhaler even ONCE in all those MONTHS when we all know she would have bought her own in the identical situation. I'd like to know why she refused to buy it even ONCE in all those MONTHS given the fact she absolutely KNEW what would likely happen as a result. I'd like to know why she thinks she's entitled to taxpayer money for her bad parenting and lethal decisions she made about her child. Why is she entitled to MY money now when she is the one who decided her OWN money was better spent on ANYTHING but her child's life-saving medication? Something she absolutely knew would end up killing him and it was just a matter of when.

Some of you really suffer from misguided feelings of sympathy here while overlooking the ONLY person deserving of it. THE CHILD. The child got screwed over MAJORLY here. And it was by his own mother, who certainly proved she sure didn't think blood was thicker than that $20 bill. She got to spend it on what she wanted come hell or high water -and he got to die. Who really got screwed by her decision to refuse to buy his emergency inhaler? This was a decision she made repeatedly over the course of MONTHS - not just once. And who is the one asking to be enriched for it now?

 

[koshergrl]

I do believe that at the very least it was not the fault of the pharmacist, the clerk, the caseworker that this woman's child died.

Notice that she was intelligent enough to get an attorney pronto....which makes me doubt she lacked the capacity to pursue assistance,even though she was penniless (if she was). I doubt she had a retainer, but she was able to find an attorney anyway, which means she had enough intelligence to seek and follow referrals until she found one that would work on the chance of a portion of a settlement, which tells me she did have the know how to seek referrals for free services.

I know there are people (a lot of people) who cannot function without people telling them what to do and who do not have the wherewithal to seek referrals and information on their own. They have a preconceived notion about something, or they just don't want to call, say, the insurance company, or the hospital, or seek knowledge on their own. I know people personally like this, who will dismiss a course of action out of hand because they think they know the answer. I will tell them, "why don't you call so and so to find out" and it NEVER EVEN CROSSED THEIR MINDS to do that. I don't know if they think the information isn't out there, or doubt their ability to find it. These are intelligent, working people, too. I don't know what the disconnect is.

But even in that case, they are responsible for themselves. It's not MY responsibility to make sure they pursue all avenues to get adequate care, to find the lowest cost for services, or whatever else it might be that they are jyping themselves out of. It's not the job of the pharmacist to recognize "this person is too lazy to figure out how to get this medication...I'd better help them" or even the caseworker who made an error. It is the responsibility of the client to research their coverage and to care for their kids...even if they don't have insurance, or there's a glitch in the coverage that isn't their fault or is in error.

 

[Xchel]

You assume that it was a $20 inhaler...I already pointed out that meds for asthma, maintenence or inhalers can cost up to $300 a month. People every day make the choice between food and meds..and if she had medcaid she can't afford expensive meds, because face it rich folks with extra money do not get medicaid. If they are her insurance company and they are..and they don't pay for something that they should have paid for then yes, they are negligent when the child dies. We don't know what steps she took to deal with the problem, so it should be a little clear to us that if an attorney took it on a percent basis and he likely did...because she don't have the money for an attorney, that he thinks he has a winnable case...which means she did things to try to solve the problem and it wasn't solved.

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong, they are not. People make mistakes, if one was actually made. She had months to pursue this, and there are direct client hotlines to medicaid to straighten out and educate oneself about coverage. There is also the ER, which WILL TREAT a child in acute distress.

This bullshit about holding low paid caseworkers accountable for the stupidity of their clients is just that...bullshit. They don't pay (and couldn't afford) malpractice insurance to cover, and they carry immense caseloads. Coding is complicated, as is determining eligibility. You all want the government to be involved in life or death decisions of poor people, you need to accept that the government makes mistakes, and people WILL DIE. This is what has been said from the beginning....state medical care will not save people. It will kill them. And it won't be anybody's fault except the retards who think the government is there to hold your hand from birth to (early) death.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah sit in an ER for 15 hours sometime waiting in their triage unit to be tended to and then they just write you a script for the same medicine, they don't give it to you.

That's not true. People who come to EDs for care are triaged. The people that wait for 15 hours are the people who have minor conditions and shouldn't be in the ER. Of course more severe people are going to jump them in line, that is the point of an ER. Any child that came in in respiratory distress would instantly go back for a medical resuscitation. You don't mess around with the airway.

And any patient who comes to the ER is owed a survey and exam under EMTALA. They can't just hand you a script without you being seen.

It took them 15 hours to get my son in for RSV and he was 2 years old..that is respiratory distress. I picked the 15 hours on purpose. I am pointing out though that getting them into the ER is going to do nothing except get them another script..she already had a script she didn't need another one.

First of all, unverifiable anecdotes are not evidence. Was I there? Did I see your child? Have I any way of knowing how much imminent danger your child's life was in when you took him in? Am I going to trust YOUR word for it?

Epic fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you give informed consent when you fill the medication...the pharmacist has to inform you, not the doctor..that is why you get the little flyer in with your medication.

Actually, BOTH of them have to inform you. Your doctor is not allowed to simply assume that the pharmacist will handle it. And neither of them are allowed to assume the "little flyer" is enough.

 

[Sunshine]

you give informed consent when you fill the medication...the pharmacist has to inform you, not the doctor..that is why you get the little flyer in with your medication.

Actually, BOTH of them have to inform you. Your doctor is not allowed to simply assume that the pharmacist will handle it. And neither of them are allowed to assume the "little flyer" is enough.

That is correct. And 'patient teaching' as part of the state Nurse Practice Act is a duty of nurses as well.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You assume that it was a $20 inhaler...I already pointed out that meds for asthma, maintenence or inhalers can cost up to $300 a month. People every day make the choice between food and meds..and if she had medcaid she can't afford expensive meds, because face it rich folks with extra money do not get medicaid. If they are her insurance company and they are..and they don't pay for something that they should have paid for then yes, they are negligent when the child dies. We don't know what steps she took to deal with the problem, so it should be a little clear to us that if an attorney took it on a percent basis and he likely did...because she don't have the money for an attorney, that he thinks he has a winnable case...which means she did things to try to solve the problem and it wasn't solved.

I don't assume anything about the cost of the inhaler. I assume that her child's life was in danger, and she diddled around for months without resolving the problem one way or another, until he finally died.

Medicaid should have found the glitch and cleared it up sooner, sure. SHE, on the other hand, should have done a lot more to make sure they did than just make some phone calls and then wring her hands when all that happened was that she was mailed a letter stating that her kid was eligible.

 

[Xchel]

You assume that it was a $20 inhaler...I already pointed out that meds for asthma, maintenence or inhalers can cost up to $300 a month. People every day make the choice between food and meds..and if she had medcaid she can't afford expensive meds, because face it rich folks with extra money do not get medicaid. If they are her insurance company and they are..and they don't pay for something that they should have paid for then yes, they are negligent when the child dies. We don't know what steps she took to deal with the problem, so it should be a little clear to us that if an attorney took it on a percent basis and he likely did...because she don't have the money for an attorney, that he thinks he has a winnable case...which means she did things to try to solve the problem and it wasn't solved.

I don't assume anything about the cost of the inhaler. I assume that her child's life was in danger, and she diddled around for months without resolving the problem one way or another, until he finally died.

Medicaid should have found the glitch and cleared it up sooner, sure. SHE, on the other hand, should have done a lot more to make sure they did than just make some phone calls and then wring her hands when all that happened was that she was mailed a letter stating that her kid was eligible.

actually you make lots of assumptions..the doctor didn't do anything wrong and the only way he can be sued is if he gives the wrong script...not for giving a script and not telling every little minute detail about it. The pharmacy is responsible for the side effects, making sure that the script is filled according to doctor orders..no one is going to give a patient money for the dr not telling them all the side effects of the meds..or for getting a signature to approve the meds they are given..the doctor hands you the script you either get it filled or you don't...your choice. You get it filled you have agreed to that treatment period...you gave consent. That said, if you were truly a professional you wouldn't be making assumptions about this woman based on one newspaper article...you know zero about the case.

 

[Intense]

No one resolved the computer glitch. Most of Lucero-Mills' calls weren't returned.

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.

The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.

State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.

"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

The suit against Denver seeks monetary damages and relief for her emotional loss and grief. The city fixed Zumante's eligibility status to pay for his funeral, according to court documents.

Three then-employees of Denver County Human Services are named in the lawsuit, in addition to the county. Holly Lumpkin was Zumante's caseworker, and Lumpkin's supervisors, Teresa Long and Annette Williams, also were named.

Lucero-Mills repeatedly tried to fill prescriptions at Walgreens.

The county automatically generated paperwork after her continual calls and sent it to the family's home. It verified Zumante qualified for Medicaid — yet pharmacists said he wasn't in the system.

Mom sues Denver, three workers over child's death - The Denver Post

Why did Mom not take further action? Why was Mom conditioned to take further action? Conditioned State Dependency? This is not about blaming Republicans now is it? Really?

 

[AnnieInMexico]

If the child was legally eligible for the medicine and either medicaid glitches or the pharmacy glitch caused her a denial that resulted in his death..yeah they are legally responsible. Nurses and doctors can be sued individually as well as hospitals so why not pharmacies when they are neglectful? All it would have taken is them calling medicaid to verify eligibility. The mother tried several times to get the child´s medication so she was not the one that was neglectful.

But this wasn't a pharmacy error. When the pharmacy prints a label for your Rx they are contacting the computer system of your ins co and that computer decides if the Rx can be filled or not. If ins won't pay, the computer won't print a proper label. The pharmacy staff can over ride that if the patient wants to pay in cash, but it is the ins co (or in this case, our tax dollars) that calls the shots. Clearly the mother wasn't willing to pay even $10 for an emergency inhaler, Albuterol. I hardly see how this is the fault of the pharmacy.

That's how I concluded the pharmacy was in the big middle of it and refused to provide the correct medications for the victim, her son. According to what this says, it was Walgreen's who told her that her son was ineligible for Medicaid. That makes Walgreen's a spokesperson in behalf of a government that screwed up big time.

No, it doesn't. Not in the least. Everyone screams at the pharmacy as though they have the ability to tell the ins co what to do. If a doctor writes an Rx and ins does not cover the Rx that is not the fault of the pharmacy, they are merely doing as they were told.

To suggest that a pharmacy should pay for every Rx someone can't afford is as realistic as suggesting every grocery store, every doctor, every dentist, every eye doctor, every shoe store should pay when someone is unable or unwilling to pay.

This is not the fault of the pharmacy. Much as I hate Walgreens, this time it isn't their fault.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You assume that it was a $20 inhaler...I already pointed out that meds for asthma, maintenence or inhalers can cost up to $300 a month. People every day make the choice between food and meds..and if she had medcaid she can't afford expensive meds, because face it rich folks with extra money do not get medicaid. If they are her insurance company and they are..and they don't pay for something that they should have paid for then yes, they are negligent when the child dies. We don't know what steps she took to deal with the problem, so it should be a little clear to us that if an attorney took it on a percent basis and he likely did...because she don't have the money for an attorney, that he thinks he has a winnable case...which means she did things to try to solve the problem and it wasn't solved.

I don't assume anything about the cost of the inhaler. I assume that her child's life was in danger, and she diddled around for months without resolving the problem one way or another, until he finally died.

Medicaid should have found the glitch and cleared it up sooner, sure. SHE, on the other hand, should have done a lot more to make sure they did than just make some phone calls and then wring her hands when all that happened was that she was mailed a letter stating that her kid was eligible.

actually you make lots of assumptions..the doctor didn't do anything wrong and the only way he can be sued is if he gives the wrong script...not for giving a script and not telling every little minute detail about it. The pharmacy is responsible for the side effects, making sure that the script is filled according to doctor orders..no one is going to give a patient money for the dr not telling them all the side effects of the meds..or for getting a signature to approve the meds they are given..the doctor hands you the script you either get it filled or you don't...your choice. You get it filled you have agreed to that treatment period...you gave consent. That said, if you were truly a professional you wouldn't be making assumptions about this woman based on one newspaper article...you know zero about the case.

Fine. You're happy with your incompetent doctor . . . or possibly you just weren't paying attention to him. Mazel tov. But don't try to apply your shitty doctor and ER experiences to everyone else and assume they're the norm. Comprehend the fact that the world doesn't begin and end with YOUR experiences.

 

[Xchel]

No one resolved the computer glitch. Most of Lucero-Mills' calls weren't returned.

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.

The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.

State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.

"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

The suit against Denver seeks monetary damages and relief for her emotional loss and grief. The city fixed Zumante's eligibility status to pay for his funeral, according to court documents.

Three then-employees of Denver County Human Services are named in the lawsuit, in addition to the county. Holly Lumpkin was Zumante's caseworker, and Lumpkin's supervisors, Teresa Long and Annette Williams, also were named.

Lucero-Mills repeatedly tried to fill prescriptions at Walgreens.

The county automatically generated paperwork after her continual calls and sent it to the family's home. It verified Zumante qualified for Medicaid — yet pharmacists said he wasn't in the system.

Mom sues Denver, three workers over child's death - The Denver Post

Why did Mom not take further action? Why was Mom conditioned to take further action? Conditioned State Dependency? This is not about blaming Republicans now is it? Really?

after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair,

Advair is not a $20 drug it is a $250 drug...most folks can't afford it. Cecille, if you are in the medical field you should know that Advair is not an emergency inhaler it is a maintenence drug and it is an expensive one..and it isn't an inhaler either it is a disc that has powder that you inhale.

 

[AnnieInMexico]

No one resolved the computer glitch. Most of Lucero-Mills' calls weren't returned.

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.

The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.

State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.

"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

The suit against Denver seeks monetary damages and relief for her emotional loss and grief. The city fixed Zumante's eligibility status to pay for his funeral, according to court documents.

Three then-employees of Denver County Human Services are named in the lawsuit, in addition to the county. Holly Lumpkin was Zumante's caseworker, and Lumpkin's supervisors, Teresa Long and Annette Williams, also were named.

Lucero-Mills repeatedly tried to fill prescriptions at Walgreens.

The county automatically generated paperwork after her continual calls and sent it to the family's home. It verified Zumante qualified for Medicaid — yet pharmacists said he wasn't in the system.

Mom sues Denver, three workers over child's death - The Denver Post

Why did Mom not take further action? Why was Mom conditioned to take further action? Conditioned State Dependency? This is not about blaming Republicans now is it? Really?

after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair,

Advair is not a $20 drug it is a $250 drug...most folks can't afford it.

Advair is an expensive drug and it takes days to weeks to start working, it's a steroid. Albuterol is a rescue inhaler, takes seconds to work, it's probably one of the most popular asthma drugs around and I used to pay $10 for it at Costco pharmacy. In months and months this mother couldn't spend $10, maybe $20 at a Walgreens for a rescue inhaler that she should have had on hand anyway for break-through asthma attacks.

Bleh....

 

[Xchel]

Clearly the mother wasn't willing to pay even $10 for an emergency inhaler, Albuterol.

Advair cannot be replaced with Albuterol. If you know about asthma meds and I do..Albuterol is an emergency medication for an attack and Advair is a maintenence medicine for severe asthma..you cannot replace one with the other..Advair costs in the area of $250...Albuterol isn't so cheap either and your body can become accustomed to it to the point that it no longer works.

Here is what Albuterol costs..

Patients without insurance can expect to pay between $30 and $60 for their albuterol and the inhaler. The cost varies depending upon the dosage and brand of medication. Those with insurance will pay typical copays and coinsurance rates, which can range from $5 for the generic version to $50 for a brand name.

Cost of an Albuterol Inhaler - Get Information and Prices - CostHelper.com

If the child is small they usually give them a nebulizer which costs from $200 to $300 without insurance..but the medication we are talking about is not Albuterol it is Advair.

 

[Xchel]

Why did Mom not take further action? Why was Mom conditioned to take further action? Conditioned State Dependency? This is not about blaming Republicans now is it? Really?

after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair,

Advair is not a $20 drug it is a $250 drug...most folks can't afford it.

Advair is an expensive drug and it takes days to weeks to start working, it's a steroid. Albuterol is a rescue inhaler, takes seconds to work, it's probably one of the most popular asthma drugs around and I used to pay $10 for it at Costco pharmacy. In months and months this mother couldn't spend $10, maybe $20 at a Walgreens for a rescue inhaler that she should have had on hand anyway for break-through asthma attacks.

Bleh....

You can't replace Advair with an emergency inhaler, one is maintenence...the Advair, and the other is for an attack alone which is Albuterol, combivent or something of that sort...Advair is the drug he needed not Albuterol.

 

[AnnieInMexico]

Clearly the mother wasn't willing to pay even $10 for an emergency inhaler, Albuterol.

Advair cannot be replaced with Albuterol. If you know about asthma meds and I do..Albuterol is an emergency medication for an attack and Advair is a maintenence medicine for severe asthma..you cannot replace one with the other..Advair costs in the area of $250...Albuterol isn't so cheap either and your body can become accustomed to it to the point that it no longer works.

Here is what Albuterol costs..

Patients without insurance can expect to pay between $30 and $60 for their albuterol and the inhaler. The cost varies depending upon the dosage and brand of medication. Those with insurance will pay typical copays and coinsurance rates, which can range from $5 for the generic version to $50 for a brand name.

Cost of an Albuterol Inhaler - Get Information and Prices - CostHelper.com

If the child is small they usually give them a nebulizer which costs from $200 to $300 without insurance..but the medication we are talking about is not Albuterol it is Advair.

after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair,

Advair is not a $20 drug it is a $250 drug...most folks can't afford it.

Advair is an expensive drug and it takes days to weeks to start working, it's a steroid. Albuterol is a rescue inhaler, takes seconds to work, it's probably one of the most popular asthma drugs around and I used to pay $10 for it at Costco pharmacy. In months and months this mother couldn't spend $10, maybe $20 at a Walgreens for a rescue inhaler that she should have had on hand anyway for break-through asthma attacks.

Bleh....

You can't replace Advair with an emergency inhaler, one is maintenence...the Advair, and the other is for an attack alone which is Albuterol, combivent or something of that sort...Advair is the drug he needed not Albuterol.

You do not need a nebulizer, an inhaler is very effective. I know asthma meds well as well and I never claimed they were the same. What I wrote is that it is a RESCUE INHALER. Most kids with asthma have one at home and one at school in case of a severe problem.

As a nurse I know of very few severe asthmatics that do not keep a rescue inhaler on hand. Mom didn't even have THAT. THAT would have saved the child's life. This would be a non issue had she had that.

 

[Xchel]

Clearly the mother wasn't willing to pay even $10 for an emergency inhaler, Albuterol.

Advair cannot be replaced with Albuterol. If you know about asthma meds and I do..Albuterol is an emergency medication for an attack and Advair is a maintenence medicine for severe asthma..you cannot replace one with the other..Advair costs in the area of $250...Albuterol isn't so cheap either and your body can become accustomed to it to the point that it no longer works.

Here is what Albuterol costs..



Cost of an Albuterol Inhaler - Get Information and Prices - CostHelper.com

If the child is small they usually give them a nebulizer which costs from $200 to $300 without insurance..but the medication we are talking about is not Albuterol it is Advair.

Advair is an expensive drug and it takes days to weeks to start working, it's a steroid. Albuterol is a rescue inhaler, takes seconds to work, it's probably one of the most popular asthma drugs around and I used to pay $10 for it at Costco pharmacy. In months and months this mother couldn't spend $10, maybe $20 at a Walgreens for a rescue inhaler that she should have had on hand anyway for break-through asthma attacks.

Bleh....

You can't replace Advair with an emergency inhaler, one is maintenence...the Advair, and the other is for an attack alone which is Albuterol, combivent or something of that sort...Advair is the drug he needed not Albuterol.

You do not need a nebulizer, an inhaler is very effective. I know asthma meds well as well and I never claimed they were the same. What I wrote is that it is a RESCUE INHALER. Most kids with asthma have one at home and one at school in case of a severe problem.

As a nurse I know of very few severe asthmatics that do not keep a rescue inhaler on hand. Mom didn't even have THAT. THAT would have saved the child's life. This would be a non issue had she had that.

She had a rescue inhaler...it didn't work..he died...what she needed was the Advair..a maintenence medication that is very very expensive. The child I believe died in the hospital..rescue inhalers don't always work depending on the advanced stage of the attack and if you are using your maintenence meds or not..in this case he was not using his maintenence meds which caused him to die..the maintenence meds are clearly not just ten bucks...