11–17 of 17 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt it still cheaper than a lifetime of HIV meds?
For who? The patient? Probably. The insurance company? No. They make a profit with every transaction, so the smart money is treating chronic conditions, not curing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isnt it still cheaper than a lifetime of HIV meds?
For who? The patient? Probably. The insurance company? No. They make a profit with every transaction, so the smart money is treating chronic conditions, not curing them.
Insurance companies are highly motivated to treat (and cure) chronic illnesses because those patients cost them so much over the long term.
At $200k for treatment I don't see insurance companies covering this.
https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Cure_for_AIDS
https://southpark.cc.com/clips/164373/they-found-a-cure-for-...
"about $180,000 shot directly into the bloodstream"
At $200k for treatment I don't see insurance companies covering this.
> the T-cell samples extracted through that process will be sent to a lab, where they will be genetically altered in a process developed by AGT. He said AGT believes the genetically altered T-cells will make them resistant to HIV infection and enable them to do what HIV has prevented human T-cells from doing during the course of the 40-year plus HIV epidemic – to neutralize the virus and prevent it from harming the h…
That's now how I read it. The treatment allows T-cells to do what they'd normally do to any other infection. And, from the first paragraph, should "enable the immune system of people who are HIV positive to permanently eliminate HIV from their body."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For who? The patient? Probably. The insurance company? No. They make a profit with every transaction, so the smart money is treating chronic conditions, not curing them.
This is very, very, VERY wrong. Insurance companies bucket people by risk and then charge premiums based on that. The more people use specialist services, the less they make per person. They most definitely do not make money per transaction. They are paying premium money out with each claim. This is one of the reasons they are so obsessed with preventative care. It’s way cheaper and catches shit before it gets more e…
The net increased of cost could be seen as a decentralized cost over their entire customer base. The question is... if the insurer is taking a relative percentage for each dollar passed between the insurer and healthcare industry then, maintaining a higher volume of expenses is proportional to their profit. (This would be dependent on a fairly non-elastic demand of people buying insurance). There might also be regulation associated to the maximum amount of profit they can make relative to the actual amount used to cover their customers. If that's the case, then more money spent is probably more money earned.
At $200k for treatment I don't see insurance companies covering this.