Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
15-04-2019, 13:51   #46
ELM327
Registered User
 
ELM327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 8,661
If paying for private health insurance doesn't get you some advantages, what would be the point in having it?
ELM327 is offline  
Advertisement
15-04-2019, 13:58   #47
steddyeddy
Registered User
 
steddyeddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candamir View Post
I’m not doubting your credentials and extensive experience in biotech, but you really have mangled that particular piece of data.
We'll agree to disagree C but what have I misrepresented and how would you present it?
steddyeddy is offline  
Thanks from:
15-04-2019, 13:59   #48
One eyed Jack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 12,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy View Post
Jack what formula are you applying to determine these drugs aren't cost effective?

I’m not applying any formula, I’m going on the statement released by the HSE in 2016 regarding these drugs and the cost of funding them vs the budget they have to run the Public Health Service -


HSE Statement Pembrolizumab and Nivolizumab


Quote:
The HSE has a responsibility to source the most effective medicine on behalf of patients at an affordable price to the taxpayer. As is the case for all new medicines, the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and nivolizumab are being carefully considered under a process of health technology assessment, in order to determine value for money and patient benefits.

Affordability of drugs generally, and of new medicines, is an issue globally and there are a range of other new medicines also becoming available to the market in 2016. The HSE must operate within its allocated budget for 2016 and within this prioritise the allocation of resources across the entire health system. In the 2016 HSE Service Plan an additional €7 million was allocated for Cancer Drugs to support the National Cancer Control Programme's Systemic Therapy Programme. In this context pembrolizumab, for example, has an estimated net 5 year cost implication to the state of €64m at the price being sought by the pharmaceutical company.

The HSE engages robustly with manufacturers to achieve the best price and the best value for Irish patients and the taxpayer. It is widely recognised that Ireland is already paying higher prices for medicines than many of our European neighbour states. The single biggest barrier to new drugs approvals in Ireland is the high prices that manufacturers are seeking to charge. Lower prices would enable the HSE to afford more innovative drugs for more patients as they become available and the HSE will continue to engage with manufacturers in the best interests of patients and the taxpayer.
One eyed Jack is offline  
(2) thanks from:
15-04-2019, 14:07   #49
howamidifferent
Registered User
 
howamidifferent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,600
I pay €5200 per annum for VHI for my family from my net after tax income.
I've never had so much as a tooth pulled from all the PRSI I've payed in over the past 35 years. I think I'm quite entitled to expect 35 years of PRSI payments and 35 years of VHI payments plus all my taxes paid to give me at least some benefit over someone who does not pay private health insurance and in many cases may not even be paying PRSI. It's a choice I make to ensure I can avail of medical treatment if I require it, just as I fund my pension to ensure I have an income in retirement. Too many people expect the state (taxpayer) to fund them throughout life and into retirement. You make your choice when it comes to how you spend your money and if you dont deem healthcare a priority then dont whinge when your waiting with the other 2 million people who took the same stance as you did.
howamidifferent is offline  
Thanks from:
15-04-2019, 14:09   #50
Kiith
Moderator
 
Kiith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,250
Paying for private health care gives you a lot of benefits, but getting exclusive access to a potentially life saving drug should not be one of them.

As for the decision by the HSE to not allow these drugs for anyone on public, it seems like they had to balance the costs/benefits of these drugs, and they decided that they weren't worth it. They don't have an endless budget, and have to allocate money where they think it will do the most benefit. Unfortunately, these drugs do not fall under that right now.
Kiith is offline  
Advertisement
15-04-2019, 14:11   #51
Candamir
Registered User
 
Candamir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy View Post
Let's take a look at just one of the drugs, Tecentriq, a treatment for breast cancer. This has a 19% objective response rate (the percentage of patients whose cancer shrinks or disappears) for triple negative breast cancer. This is a form of breast cancer where three receptors such as the oestrogen and progesterone receptor aren't expressed. Since these receptors are often the target of conventional therapies for breast cancer this type of breast cancer is incredibly difficult to treat. Now we have a drug that can extend your life by 19%. I can't see how you can deny this to people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy View Post
We'll agree to disagree C but what have I misrepresented and how would you present it?

Maybe they kept you away from the clinical side of things, but a 19% response rate in no way equates to ”a drug that can extend your life by 19%”. For a start.
Candamir is offline  
15-04-2019, 14:14   #52
markodaly
Registered User
 
markodaly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy View Post
No offence M but you seem to use that strawman regularly. No one but no one is saying that. Literally no-one. You sound very young but there's more to debating healthcare, education ect to saying it's rich and poor.

The complexity of healthcare is lost on yourself and a others. Most people seem to think that in this case private health care customers pay more so should be entitled to greater pay. I'll make this as clear as possible. I have experience in industry and academia in biotech. All healthcare is subsidised. No one pays the full amount for it. Some diseases such as cystic fibrosis aren't common enough to be worth researching were it not for massive government and some charity funding. The idea that an extra 1k a year for VHI should be the difference in life and death for someone with terminal breast cancer is ludicrous. It's not even a rich VS poor argument. 1000 a year isn't huge money.
It seems you do a fair bit of straw-manning yourself.
markodaly is online now  
Thanks from:
15-04-2019, 14:18   #53
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
Registered User
 
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 2,466
As a person without health insurance who has spent the last few years relying on these drugs to keep me alive, this makes me nervous. The next drug in the arsenal after my current one fails was only made available in Ireland in May 2018. I think it will now remain available to me as it’s already in the system but what if a decision had been made to just give it to those with health insurance? That option would be gone for me. And I can’t get health insurance now, I’m uninsurable. New drugs are becoming available all the time and some of them really do add on years. How agonising would it be to know there was a drug you couldn’t access?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancapailldorcha View Post
The article is quite vague and, frankly of very poor quality. I don't read RTÉ so I suppose I am not missing much.

Nothing whatsoever is mentioned about these drugs save for that they are new. That's it. Are they drugs in the traditional sense, ie chemo? Or are they something else?

In the UK, we have the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) which must approve NHS funding for all drugs. It makes decisions based on drug efficacy, safety and value for money as health spending is finite. I don't know what the Irish equivalent is but the fact that the author of this piece never contacted them or mentioned this suggests that this is a clickbait article. We don't know if these new drugs perform any better than generics of if they just add a few months to a patient's life. If they don't perform well then the HSE has a tough call to make as this money can be spent elsewhere where it might reap more benefits.

A shame that RTÉ went for the clickbait article on such an important issue.
Sometimes it’s not brand name versions being kept from people where generics are given, sometimes the brand name version is the only version available.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts is offline  
15-04-2019, 14:32   #54
steddyeddy
Registered User
 
steddyeddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candamir View Post
19% response rate in no way equates to ”a drug that can extend your life by 19%”.
Ah yea fair point. The rest of my paragraph stands though. I should have said "a drug which has a 19% chance of extending your life if you have triple negative breast cancer".

Anything else you disagree with?
steddyeddy is offline  
Advertisement
15-04-2019, 14:33   #55
steddyeddy
Registered User
 
steddyeddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by markodaly View Post
It seems you do a fair bit of straw-manning yourself.
Do these drugs not have the potential to save your life?
steddyeddy is offline  
15-04-2019, 14:35   #56
steddyeddy
Registered User
 
steddyeddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELM327 View Post
If paying for private health insurance doesn't get you some advantages, what would be the point in having it?
It's not up to the public to come up with reasons for why private health care should provide greater benefit.
steddyeddy is offline  
15-04-2019, 14:35   #57
Candamir
Registered User
 
Candamir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy View Post
Ah yea fair point. The rest of my paragraph stands though. I should have said "a drug which has a 19% chance of extending your life if you have triple negative breast cancer".

Anything else you disagree with?
Well, it doesn’t necessarily mean that either, but I don’t have the full data set to say exactly what it does, or might mean.
Candamir is offline  
15-04-2019, 14:37   #58
markodaly
Registered User
 
markodaly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy View Post
Do these drugs not have the potential to save your life?
Well, that is a subjective word, and if you do work in academia you would wise to follow the scientific principle, not some emotive clickbaity article.
markodaly is online now  
Thanks from:
15-04-2019, 14:41   #59
ELM327
Registered User
 
ELM327's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 8,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by steddyeddy View Post
It's not up to the public to come up with reasons for why private health care should provide greater benefit.
It's as if you have purposely misunderstood my post.


If I am paying for healthcare (which I am, approx 2500 per annum for couple), why would I bother if everyone is treated the same anyway??
ELM327 is offline  
Thanks from:
15-04-2019, 14:53   #60
jimmycrackcorm
Registered User
 
jimmycrackcorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 11,922
This wouldn't be an issue if people paid the money on healthcare that they pay for alcohol and smokes every year.

Bear in mind also that private healthcare subsidises the public system by paying for facilities that the payees are entitled to anyway.
jimmycrackcorm is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet