American Healthcare continues to go backward

[Donnyboy]

If you have diabetes and you are facing all the negative consequences of diabetes: heart disease, amputation, blindness, kidney disease and dialysis, impotence, etc., which would you pay more for, a treatment which would reduce your risk of all of that but not to zero, or a cure which would reduce your risk of diabetic complications to zero?

You would be an absolute idiot to say, from a consumer standpoint, that the treatment is worth more, that you would pay more for the treatment than the cure. Again I say if I found a cure for diabetes tomorrow it would make me the richest person in the history of the world. It makes absolutely zero financial sense to not market a cure for diabetes.

I understand everything you are saying but it didn't answer the question. You are speaking from the consumer....yes I would rather cure my illness any illness than treat it long term. Big hole in this is said consumer still has to be able to afford it......you probably have a mortgage instead of paying cash despite the fact you are paying thousands in interest to level out the cost. Most people don't have house money laying around so they finance. If diabetes cure cost 200K less than 10% of America could afford it and we have more than the rest of the world. Less than 1% globally could.

From the business level again purely balance sheet. Long term consistent steady revenue is better in every way than single less predictable lump sums.

If the answer is pharma has a different model due to being driven by greater good or something then yes.....or if advancements occur so quickly you need to sew up markets as fast as you can then ok......I don't know the sector that well. But the concept of long term stable revenue streams being better than one time is universally accepted.

 

[RxCowboy]

I understand everything you are saying but it didn't answer the question. You are speaking from the consumer....yes I would rather cure my illness any illness than treat it long term. Big hole in this is said consumer still has to be able to afford it......you probably have a mortgage instead of paying cash despite the fact you are paying thousands in interest to level out the cost. Most people don't have house money laying around so they finance. If diabetes cure cost 200K less than 10% of America could afford it and we have more than the rest of the world. Less than 1% globally could.

From the business level again purely balance sheet. Long term consistent steady revenue is better in every way than single less predictable lump sums.

If the answer is pharma has a different model due to being driven by greater good or something then yes.....or if advancements occur so quickly you need to sew up markets as fast as you can then ok......I don't know the sector that well. But the concept of long term stable revenue streams being better than one time is universally accepted.

And from an insurance standpoint, would you rather pay for the cure, or for a lifetime of treatment and some heart attacks and ICU, kidney transplants, dialysis, amputations, etc.?

You aren’t looking at all sides of the equation.

 

[Donnyboy]

And from an insurance standpoint, would you rather pay for the cure, or for a lifetime of treatment and some heart attacks and ICU, kidney transplants, dialysis, amputations, etc.?

You aren’t looking at all sides of the equation.

I could be wrong…..insurance ain’t paying big amounts if there is any other option. Hell they don’t pay for things people need now.

Friend is paying out of pocket mid 5 digits every quarter for cancer treatment that her good by our standards insurance doesn’t deem it effective despite being under the care of the premier oncologist group in Texas.

If they are compelled pricing would be capped. Which would bring us back to the initial question. What makes the sector different?