Patents and healthcare thing (2 Viewers)

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

So people who contract STD's should only pay $5 for antibiotics, but parents with children should pay $30 for the same medication?

EDIT: Off MIMS

Luv MIMS, use it for all my self-prescription needs

 

[KFunk]

So people who contract STD's should only pay $5 for antibiotics, but parents with children should pay $30 for the same medication?

It often pays off to keep treatment for infectious diseases affordable and easily accessible - otherwise the healthcare system incurs more costs on account of the spread of the infectious agent through the population (and note that you can have silent chlamydial pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause infertility over time despite the lack of symptoms = large social/economic cost). The Cochrane review that is referrenced by that paper you linked was published in 2005, so perhaps its just a case of the PBS being slow to catch up?

There may well have been a rationale for not approving azithromycin for pertussis in the past (say relating to drug cost, effectiveness, costs of not treating, known side effects and the community antibiotic resistance profile). I'm not really in touch with health economics so I can't properly comment on what the reasoning was, except to say that Cochrane-style metanalyses wont always apply universally if certain regional factors (such as antibiotic resistance) are important. Chances are, though, that it was just another case of PBS slowness.

 

[katie tully]

It often pays off to keep treatment for infectious diseases affordable and easily accessible - otherwise the healthcare system incurs more costs on account of the spread of the infectious agent through the population (and note that you can have silent chlamydial pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause infertility over time despite the lack of symptoms = large social/economic cost). The Cochrane review that is referrenced by that paper you linked was published in 2005, so perhaps its just a case of the PBS being slow to catch up?

There may well have been a rationale for not approving azithromycin for pertussis in the past (say relating to drug cost, effectiveness, costs of not treating, known side effects and the community antibiotic resistance profile). I'm not really in touch with health economics so I can't properly comment on what the reasoning was, except to say that Cochrane-style metanalyses wont always apply universally if certain regional factors (such as antibiotic resistance) are important. Chances are, though, that it was just another case of PBS slowness.

Yeah as I said, the paper I linked was written in 2006 and I couldn't find anything else to suggest it had been implemented since. It was more an example of what I think, is a short coming of the PBS system.

You may know more about this, but what's the turn around time for a person applying to get a specific medicine on the PBS scheme, if it isn't already?

Most of the papers I read re: PBS cited Pharma companies crying poor as the main reason for why a lot of medicines aren't PBS.

 

[katie tully]

Luv MIMS, use it for all my self-prescription needs

Luv MIMS too.

Luv this other book I just bought, about the design and manufacture of pharmaceuticals. Was reading about suppositories for the lulz, coz it reminded me of the time I tried to give Nick a panadol suppository and he was like, DO NOT WANT.

 

[nikolas]

i did on page one. this is no different from your doctor charging u above and beyond what is require by medicare. and this isnt something new either; people buy expensive medication that is protected by patents all the time. it is up to the government to subsidise the cost of that medication or in this case, a genetic test. the right of the manufacturer to charge what they like is protected by australian law. again, the government has the final say here.

Thats different, im paying the doctor to do the testing, not the fact that it is his test.

I don't see why, this company thinks it can disallow others to look at certain parts of my DNA to test if i have a defective Gene.

To me this seems as logical as whoever invented the litmus paper test, disallowing everyone else's the ability to test acids/bases.

 

[nick3157]

Thats different, im paying the doctor to do the testing, not the fact that it is his test.

I don't see why, this company thinks it can disallow others to look at certain parts of my DNA to test if i have a defective Gene.

To me this seems as logical as whoever invented the litmus paper test, disallowing everyone else's the ability to test acids/bases.

yeah put it that way and you're right.
but the point i was trying to make was that its entirely within their rights to do what they are and that this sort of thing happens every day.

 

[nikolas]

yeah put it that way and you're right.
but the point i was trying to make was that its entirely within their rights to do what they are and that this sort of thing happens every day.

Fair enough