How much is a life worth?

[ArkAngel]

---

Members do not see this ad.

$50,000 per year of life?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100927...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDOTMwMDBjYW5jZXJk

 

[LizzyM]

This is not about how much your life is worth (I was thinking of the calculations made by lawyers in lawsuits) but how much society (as represented by insurance companies and the government) are willing to pay to extend life by a few days or weeks.

It costs a lot to bring a drug to market because bundled into the cost is the cost of testing all the drugs that didn't make it to market. All the return on investment has to come from the one - in -ten (or whatever it is) that actually get FDA approval and get sold. Pharmaceutical companies will charge what the market will bear (and will sometimes charge less in countries where the government is less willing to pay the astronomical amounts that we pay in the US -- and that's no different than how many consumer goods are marketed internationally).

We look at how insurance premiums go up & up and how little bang we get for our buck; this article is very informative in that regard.

 

[houseobsessed]

7.50

 

[PreMedder]

bout tree fiddy

 

[SOcash]

I know that this isn't precisely what the article is about, but the actuarial value of the average human life is usually $200,000-300,000. It goes down with age and a lower tax bracket.

 

[orthomyxo]

bout tree fiddy

I lol'd

 

[Poliscidoc]

My life= priceless
Other people= 7.50 an hour sounds right

 

[tweek125]

Over 9,000!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[houseobsessed]

I don't know if this is allowed or not, so mods, please
don't ban me or get mad but this site tells you how much haha, it says You are worth exactly $1,775,320 to me.. it takes in all kinds of factors and then expands them after you submit. It tells you why each catergory matters in expense, it's pretty cool.

humansforsale.com << i just did it xD

Gender: Male - $200,000
Women are given $135,000 to start and men are given $200,000 to start. Want to know why?
Age: 18 - $50,000
This one is pretty simple. We valued younger people more than older people.
Ethnicity: Asian - $130,000
Different races were valued differently. Think this is wrong, racist or ignorant? Find out more...
Height: 5'8 - ($10,000)
Height plays a very important rols in our lives. Especially in how we are treated by others. British and Polish researchers have now provided statistical proof for a fact that many men have always suspected: tall guys have a better chance... Find out more...
Weight/Body Type: 145 lbs. / Athletic - $25,000
Discrimination is as much a fact of life for fat people as it is for other people outside the "norm." Fat people earn less money, are turned down for... Find out more...
Hair Color: Black - $5,000
Do blondes really have more fun?
Eye Color: Brown - $1,000
The average person blinks about... Find out more...
Handed: Right - $5,000
Approximately 8 to 15% of the adult population is left-handed. More fun facts...
Body Hair: Somewhat Hairy - $1,000
Want to know what Werewolf Syndrome is?
Shoe Size: 9 - $1,000
The largest feet in the world belong to a Mr Matthew McGrory who lives in America whose feet are a whopping size... Find out more...
Bald: No - $5,000
Do women prefer bald men?
20/20 Eyesight: No - $0
Do carrots really improve your vision?
Penis Size: 6 inches - $1,000
Does size matter to women?
Cavities: None - $5,000
How much is the Tooth Fairy paying per tooth?
Athletic Ability: Average - $35,000
Attractiveness: Average - $60,000

 

[jvesco22]

bout tree fiddy

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Whether I was an insurance company executive or someone for the government deciding whether to approve treatment, this would fall under the 'easy no' in terms of approving for patient use. So I could charge either larger premiums to all of my customers (or more tax if I'm the government) or decide that this $50,000 is better spent elsewhere. I'd go the latter. Of course, this is not an exact calculation as if it bought four years instead of four months, I would pay for it. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and in my opinion, it's nowhere near where this drug lies.

This is partly why we are going bankrupt with healtcare cost. You don't see the bill directly but this is why the premiums are going up so much faster than inflation. People talk about rationing as some evil thing, but insurance companies ration all the time - they have to (as does the government). There aren't infinite resources, at some point the cost/benefit ratio just becomes too large to justify increases for everyone.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

bout tree fiddy

Always the first thing that pops to mind when I hear "how much?"

 

[jm192]

I would say if you really wanted to do something so stupid as to put a pricetag on your own life:

Add together the costs of all the fatty foods, the sugar filled foods, the cigarettes, the smokeless tobacco, the alcohol, and the recreational drugs.

 

[LizzyM]

The trouble comes when we say, "on average, this drug extends life by 4 months." However, this may not be exactly 4 months more for each person. It might mean 2 years more for one person (a substantial period of time) and no extension for five others in comparision with usual care. It may be that genetic differences among patients, or among tumors, determine whether or not the drug will work... and we may not have reached the point where we can determine in advance that the tumor will or will not respond although we are working to get to that point.

Do we support a high price drug with a one -in-six chance for a big payoff?

 

[Ischemic]

*price is right music in the background and yelling audiences*

Bob, I'm going to go with 1 dollar!!

 

[drghost]

The economic value of a life is the net economic contribution that a person could be expected to make during his or her lifetime. 👍

 

[45408]

The trouble comes when we say, "on average, this drug extends life by 4 months." However, this may not be exactly 4 months more for each person. It might mean 2 years more for one person (a substantial period of time) and no extension for five others in comparision with usual care. It may be that genetic differences among patients, or among tumors, determine whether or not the drug will work... and we may not have reached the point where we can determine in advance that the tumor will or will not respond although we are working to get to that point.

Do we support a high price drug with a one -in-six chance for a big payoff?

Nope. I don't think Medicare should pay for that.

 

[LizzyM]

Nope. I don't think Medicare should pay for that.

I'm glad that someone actually wants to engage in a thoughtful discussion of the target article....

You say "medicare" suggesting to me that you would not find it worth $50,000 to extend the life of someone 65 or older by two years.... would you respond differently if you were a consultant to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the drug was being prescirbed for metastatic disease in patients 15-64 years of age.

 

[no beans]

But shouldn't we be trying to back the use of these highly individualized cancer vaccines that could actually mean better and cheaper treatments in the future with a much higher chance of survival for some cancers? As the article implies, an investment now, could mean a large payoff in the future. The only way to get experience with these treatments and learn to make them more effective and eventually cheaper, is to make them widely available to those who choose to try it, while studying the results, no? Having a parent who went through the agony of chemotherapy for months, with just awful resulting morbidity, makes me really excited about this type of treatment which specifically targets tumors. At the time, it seemed so antiquated to be poisoning all the cells in the body, not only the cancerous ones. If we were able to have success with some cancer vaccines eventually, it would have so much value for our society. Let's face it, it's difficult to find someone whose life has not been affected in some way by cancer.

 

[randomb]

"You are worth exactly $2,865,190"

According to humanforsale.com haha.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I'm glad that someone actually wants to engage in a thoughtful discussion of the target article....

You say "medicare" suggesting to me that you would not find it worth $50,000 to extend the life of someone 65 or older by two years.... would you respond differently if you were a consultant to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the drug was being prescirbed for metastatic disease in patients 15-64 years of age.

No. Maybe if there is enough demand, I would offer a supplemental policy for drugs like this if people want to pay extra on the chance they may need it but an average of four months for such high cost is not worth raising everyone premiums over. I'd rather offer a more affordable plan than my competitors by taking these things out.

 

[45408]

I'm glad that someone actually wants to engage in a thoughtful discussion of the target article....

You say "medicare" suggesting to me that you would not find it worth $50,000 to extend the life of someone 65 or older by two years.... would you respond differently if you were a consultant to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the drug was being prescirbed for metastatic disease in patients 15-64 years of age.

When I say "Medicare," I'd include Medicaid as well. Basically, I don't think federal tax dollars should unload $50,000 for a drug that is only expected to extend someone's life by four months. The government could instead spend that money on young children or college students in poor home environments and try to improve their lives over the next 70 years.

If I were an insurance company, I'd initially refuse the drug as well, but I'd let my customers dictate the decision. If people were willing to spend the money for a premium policy that covered things like that, then I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the insanely unrestricted amounts of money that Medicare and Medicaid dole out for treatments of little/no benefit - especially on patients who we're not even sure would want that treatment (the demented 80-year old whose family wants "everything done").

 

[surftheiop]

I would say if you really wanted to do something so stupid as to put a pricetag on your own life:

Add together the costs of all the fatty foods, the sugar filled foods, the cigarettes, the smokeless tobacco, the alcohol, and the recreational drugs.

Also have to factor in the risks you take for financial reward: driving to work every morning, getting stressed at workplace, driving a smaller, less safe car to save gas money, etc.

 

[surftheiop]

What do you all think about gliadel wafers after brain surgery for gliablastoma?

We learned about them in my BME class and I think it was something like 15k for 2 extra months on average

(I'm not 100% sure if the cost is correct, if anyone knows let me know)

 

[jm192]

Also have to factor in the risks you take for financial reward: driving to work every morning, getting stressed at workplace, driving a smaller, less safe car to save gas money, etc.

+1 for you sir (or ma'am)

 

[DancinSarah]

When I say "Medicare," I'd include Medicaid as well. Basically, I don't think federal tax dollars should unload $50,000 for a drug that is only expected to extend someone's life by four months.

Furthermore, every time an organization has been proposed in the US that would evaluate such drugs on the basis of their value (rather than the FDA "safe and effective paradigm), the idea is shot down with bullets labeled "death panel". People need to start realizing you can't have your cake and eat it too. The PPACA has a provision for such an entity called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (which according to Wikipedia has already been enacted), but I can't wait to see the backlash for the first drug they recommend withdrawing because it just isn't, well, worth it.

Entitlement programs such as Medicare are inherently unsustainable without such an organization. And we are witnessing that right now.