Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
I didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                       

Fix Obamacare with Drug Company Money

Drug companies pay penalties for inappropriately prescribed medication
 
(0)
  [vote for,
against]

This idea addresses one of the many forms of racketeering which make up the entirety of the US economy - the healthcare business.

My understanding of healthcare is both preventative advice and treatments to prolong life. In most cases this is help with repairing broken bones, cancer treatment, curable diseases etc.

In some countries though, the expenditure for healthcare seems to go to big pharmaceutical companies mainly due to falsified reports or doctors being bribed to prescribe expensive medications.

So as a two pronged approach to recovering health insurance company and government money -

1) Every drug comes with a usage lifetime. If a pain-killer is designed to help through period of months, then the drug company is obliged to pay for the drug by supplying at cost if the patient gets hooked and starts using it for years. Basically the drug companies become liable for the consequences of longer term use, especially where the original prescription was faulty or incredibly negligent such as prescribing heroin substitutes for headaches (the Oxycontin debacle).

2) A new economy of loss adjusters get a percentage finders fee for finding cases of 1) above.

Trump may also want to consider limiting the profit for drug company and healthcare industry shareholders.

Either that or a new Co-op healthcare industry may spawn where that extra $1000 goes to the nurses and the guy with the scalpel rather than stockholders.

That's what governments or individuals pay healthcare premiums for, right ?

bigsleep, May 16 2017

[link]






       Pfizer is worth 68 billion, say 200 billion for the top 3. Pfizer profits were just under $3 billion, but they're doing quite well compared to gsk at less than $200 million. So all in say, 6 billion for the top 3? And that's pre tax. So say $4 billion. The healthcare spend in the us is close to $4 trillion. So not quite drop in the ocean level, but certainly way off making a big difference.
bs0u0155, May 17 2017
  

       Can you institute this system after they discover the immortality drug? Thx
theircompetitor, May 17 2017
  

       Most drugs become significantly less expensive after the patents expire. If you consider that a patent lasts 17 years or so, and humanity survived without any particular drug for thousands and thousands of years, it could be simplest for no one to buy a newly-patented drug; everyone should simply wait for the patent to expire.   

       On another hand, it should be noted that a significant fraction of the overall economy depends on impatient folks who want the latest-and-greatest thing *now*, not later. I'm perfectly willing to let those folks pay exorbitant prices for their impatience....
Vernon, May 17 2017
  

       //The healthcare spend in the us is close to $4 trillion. So not quite drop in the ocean level, but certainly way off making a big difference.//   

       When you look at one player then maybe, but as a whole with 100 players its really big cash. Just a small industry of loss adjusters could probably bring in a tidy sum. If I can be bothered I'll dig out the same stats as John Oliver for the kidney care programs etc. But just dialysis covers two majorly corrupt companies.   

       I mean seriously, does a US taxpayer want to go to a hospital renown for paying the highest dividends or one which has a reputation for the best healthcare ?
bigsleep, May 17 2017
  

       //highest dividends or one which has a reputation for the best healthcare ?//   

       They don't give a flying one for the first. The second is, at least partially, carefully shepherded by the well-funded* marketing department of the hospital. People who do important community work, such as sponsoring impoverished NFL teams or re-naming railway stations.   

       *I, quite obviously don't work in that bit
bs0u0155, May 17 2017
  

       // a hospital renown[ed] for paying the highest dividends// do what???
MaxwellBuchanan, May 17 2017
  

       The usage lifetime will either be arbitrary or be the short period studied in the trials leading to drug approval. For example the proton pump blockers like Prilosec recommend treated for 4-8 weeks. At the end of that period, I still have my weighty midsection pressing down on my belly after my nightcap of chocolate and red wine. My problems recur. Do I wait the month it will take for everything to start back hurting and bleeding and waking up with a mouth full of chocolate and red wine (that I had previously swallowed; always finish before bed)? Or do I continue on the pill that makes my habits less dangerous and painful?   

       The point of having all that medical school is that hopefully physicians will make enlightened decisions about how to use the tools at their disposal, including pharmaceutical tools.
bungston, May 17 2017
  

       Sheena is… a pump blocker
Ian Tindale, May 17 2017
  

       where to begin...   

       The notion of holding drug companies accountable for damage their drugs do is not a new invention -- you can hardly turn on the TV without seeing a lawyer's ad, after all.   

       Obamacare succeeded at increasing coverage at a fairly dramatic cost to increased premiums, and still proved unsustainable in terms of either the insurance companies staying in the market, or the actual cost to consumers.   

       It's most vaunted accomplishment, and the one receiving the most attention as the Republicans struggle to replace it, are pre-existing conditions. This problem -- and the entire problem with the individual market -- could be solved fairly instantly by simply legalizing buying cooperatives -- so that the individual with the preexisting condition is treated in the individual market as she would be when employed by a Fortune 500 company.   

       Why would stockholders invest into something where someone can come in with a magic wand and take their money away, or dictate how much they can make? This notion that somehow you do people a favor by allowing them to make money is being tested out in Venezuela. I hear the healthcare is free.
theircompetitor, May 18 2017
  

       //legalizing buying cooperatives//   

       That's an interesting line of thinking. Is there currently a US federal law *against* buying co-operatives?
pertinax, May 21 2017
  

       not per se as far as I'm aware of, but it's impractical in part because buying across state lines is also difficult due to a patchwork of state regulations.   

       so while a Fortune 500 may negotiate a package for its employees, it's difficult for a "self-organized" online group to do that -- of course unions do this as well.   

       But if say, you could buy a negotiated package if you were a member of the Boy Scouts, or the Rotary club, or AAA (which does also offer other insurance packages), or AARP, etc -- lots of lobbying groups already do this -- but it could be scaled dramatically to create large enough coops where the individual risk is decreased sufficiently to make it worth while to the insurer.
theircompetitor, May 21 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle