Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Food For Very Deep Thought -- An MD, On Fosamax® Co-Pays. . . .


At Modern Healthcare.com, Larry Weinrauch, M.D., has posted a very provocative set of opinions -- do go read all of his, but it caught my eye for this mention of Fosamax®, and the drug's relatively high cost (aside from its arguably spotty safety record):

. . . .I recently polled some females over the age of 50 about osteoporosis and osteopenia. I gave them information about the benefits and risks of Fosamax and Actonel for avoidance of future fractures. I then asked if they would be likely to take the prescription for 5 years if it were covered by insurance, or if it were not. I then inquired how much they would pay for it to be covered after explaining that we were speaking about 60 months of treatment. The answers were informative. Given the current medication price, a large percentage of patients would not take the pill if they had to pay, or if there was high copay. The amount of money spent on bisphophonates alone in the US last year would fund insurance for all of the uninsured people in the US. A recently reported osteoporosis medication costs $1300 per year. Using this medication the cost of avoiding a single non life-threatening fracture is over exceeds $100,000. Can we really afford this? Avoidance of the pain of broken bones is worthwhile, but is it as worthwhile as extending insurance coverage for catastrophic illness to those uncovered by healthcare?

All the uninsured in the US, huh? Wow. I'd likely choose some level of "catastrophic coverage" for all.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't buy it. Bisphosphonates are a fraction of total drug sales. Even if you took the total drug sales in this country it would not equal the amounts being discussed as to the costs of health care reform. Which I fear may be low in the long run.

Salmon

condor said...

I hear you Salmon -- I think the doctor's point is that "catastrophic only" coverage (a very cheap form of insurance, with for example, a $5,000 deductible) -- and such coverage, only for the presently UN-insured, would cost less than the $1,200 per year for the millions of women taking bisphosphonates -- now with a (very hefty) Medicare subsidy.

Catastropic only coverage is very inexpensive, perhaps less than $500 per year per insured risk.

Those figures do work out, in general terms.

At least by my math.

Namaste

Anonymous said...

Thanks. I missed that point.

Salmon