So interestingly, I had to start a patient on one of the new sub-q cholesterol drugs last week. Patient is uninsured so I go looking at the drug company's patient assistance program.
You can get the drug for free if your income is less than 500% of the federal poverty level. This woman lived with her husband, so as long as they made less than 82.3k/year she got the drug for free.
This of course caught my interest. Novo Nordisk (makes lots of insulins) will do the same for 400% FPL. For a childless couple, this translates to 67.6k/year.
Not too shabby.
Apply for the Novo Nordisk Patient Assistance Program (PAP) to see if you qualify to receive your Novo Nordisk diabetes medicine at no cost.
www.novocare.com
I am not a doctor, so I don't know how long one normally needs to treat chronic problems like cholesterol and diabetes,
cough, but Novo Nordisk's website on patient assistance indicates that "Patients who are approved for the PAP may qualify to receive free diabetes medicine from Novo Nordisk
for up to a year" and you cannot be a part of "Any federal, state, or local program such as
Medicare or Medicaid." Please reference site for exclusions.
^^ in the above I am being cheeky - but in all seriousness, much love and respect to the knowledgeable debaters, one of the most important being VA Hopeful Dr.
I just mention this because, to my limited understanding, these are standard restrictions for all assistance programs and manufacturer discount cards. Apparently it can really suck for a patient to be ecstatic for a year, only to find that their golden ticket vanishes and they are responsible for 2-500 dollars a month. The tricky part is, once on such-and-such medication, the average patient may have grown to trust that medication. After all, they haven't died over the past year. It is really expensive, therefore, it must be the very best. And their doctor prescribed it while knowing it was the newest, best, most expensive drug. The doctor wouldn't have done that unless it was absolutely necessary for their specific condition.
Then it is no more rationalization of cost and outcomes... in their mind, they just have to have that drug or die. And then they blame drug companies for being evil and money hungry while assuming any alternative would kill them. ... this is also when they sometimes say stuff like "bleeping obamacare" or "this is why we need socialized medicine." Funny how the problem pushes in both directions.
Again, perhaps I am ignorant. I certainly hope there is a loophole or a counter argument that makes this all better. I look forward to reading it.
Also, I am a little mixed up. I'd like to hear from all camps (especially Libertarian minded folks): where do you stand on patents exactly?
Do I correctly understand that all libertarians want all research to be privately funded?