Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

kcl.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#171

Post by doctorpangloss »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #165
doctorpangloss wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> simply managing all the administrative sides of insurance if you punch into a chatbot questions about the employer pool insurance product, your comment is exactly how the chatbot characterizes it. of course, "administrative sides of [health] insurance" includes requiring pre-auths and approving/rejecting claims, which is, haha, all the fucking evil parts of what they do! it's not "simply" anything. they need a huge…

> if you punch into a chatbot questions about the employer pool insurance product, your comment is exactly how the chatbot characterizes it. That's because it's the truth? I've taken graduate health policy classes from people like Don Berwick - I assure you that I did not and do not need to ask chatgpt to explain self-insurance to me. > f course, "administrative sides of [health] insurance" includes... How does this…

it doesn't matter if the "self insuring entity bears the risk for its insured." every word in that quote misses the point. it might as well say "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah." it doesn't tell you why UNH is an interesting and successful business, or why people are pissed off about it.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#172

Post by parineum »

yndoendo wrote: post #150
parineum wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private Equity does not care about the common good, only profits. Go back and read what I wrote. The point of capitalism is to align the profit motive of capitalists with the common good. It's not to give free reign to capitalists to do whatever they want at all costs.

Not according to the Friedman doctrine, which more and more companies are latching onto under capitalism [0]. I would also add that rejecting PE as not being apart of capitalism is rejecting reality. It is here and unfortunately to stay. Wealthy prefer to extract as much wealth from a brand, product, or service versus keep it around in good condition. Billionaires are not created by being supporters of the common goo…

> Billionaires are not created by being supporters of the common good.

Yes they are. Name a billionaire who didn't make their money providing a service people voluntarily paid for.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#173

Post by parineum »

photochemsyn wrote: post #160
parineum wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real question is, what is the metric of ‘success’ - improved public health for the entire population at low cost, or bloated returns for pharmaceutical investors? This is a false dichotomy and this kind of zero sum thinking is exactly the root of so much misunderstanding of economics that's all the rage these days (and probably forever). Wealth is created by innovation, not transfered. "Rent seeking" is wealth…

[dead]

You're not reading what I'm writing. Capitalism isn't there to serve capitalists so citing what a capitalist wants and saying it's a flaw with capitalism doesn't make sense.

Capitalism is all about providing the right incentives to capitalists so that what's good for them is good for everyone.

> ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’

The goal of capitalism is to make the answer to that question "Yes".

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#174

Post by parineum »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #127
parineum wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all assumes that the government will do an equal or better job spending money than companies that rely on spending that money well to exist. What will actually happen is that the government department of repurposing drugs will be efficient once and then get their budget reduced and never be efficient again. Next time they'll make sure to spend every last cent and not worry about the over budget boondoggle that's…

All the same problems exist in corporations. That disconnected idiocy is a function of size, not government vs private.

Is this an argument for small government?

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#175

Post by bonsai_spool »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #171
bonsai_spool wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you punch into a chatbot questions about the employer pool insurance product, your comment is exactly how the chatbot characterizes it. That's because it's the truth? I've taken graduate health policy classes from people like Don Berwick - I assure you that I did not and do not need to ask chatgpt to explain self-insurance to me. > f course, "administrative sides of [health] insurance" includes... How does this…

it doesn't matter if the "self insuring entity bears the risk for its insured." every word in that quote misses the point. it might as well say "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah." it doesn't tell you why UNH is an interesting and successful business, or why people are pissed off about it.

Uh ok bud.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#176

Post by peterbecich »

benj111 wrote: post #141
peterbecich wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The higher manufacturer price of the eyeball-safe formulation is clearly justified, then, i.m.o. Also, is it the doctor's responsibility to assume risk to save the patient money?

How does that justify a 30 fold increase? If an individual Dr can get a batch checked while saving the patient money, it obviously isn't justified.

In my opinion this is an unfair risk to the doctor's career in assuming responsibility for the quality of the compounded drug.

In the absence of any other evidence, I assume the 30-fold increase is the cost to the manufacturer of preparing the drug for eye injection "according to Hoyle."

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#177

Post by peterbecich »

duskdozer wrote: post #140
peterbecich wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The higher manufacturer price of the eyeball-safe formulation is clearly justified, then, i.m.o. Also, is it the doctor's responsibility to assume risk to save the patient money?

Assuming the compounding process is inherently more at risk of contamination. It also gets complicated when the extreme prices are involved: what risk of infection balances out with the risk that the patient will not be treated due to cost or will suffer whatever negative consequences due to bearing the cost? One in two? Probably not. One in a billion? Probably. Considering that the doctor was able to test the batche…

Given the litigious nature of medical patients these days, I think most doctors would justifiably avoid the additional responsibility of pharmaceutical QA.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#178

Post by CuriouslyC »

parineum wrote: post #174
CuriouslyC wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the same problems exist in corporations. That disconnected idiocy is a function of size, not government vs private.

Is this an argument for small government?

It's an argument for moving more autonomy towards the people actually doing the work, whether in government or corporations.

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#179

Post by yndoendo »

parineum wrote: post #172
yndoendo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not according to the Friedman doctrine, which more and more companies are latching onto under capitalism [0]. I would also add that rejecting PE as not being apart of capitalism is rejecting reality. It is here and unfortunately to stay. Wealthy prefer to extract as much wealth from a brand, product, or service versus keep it around in good condition. Billionaires are not created by being supporters of the common goo…

> Billionaires are not created by being supporters of the common good. Yes they are. Name a billionaire who didn't make their money providing a service people voluntarily paid for.

Common good != making money!

Exploitation of working class != common good!

Replacing product quality indigence with poor quality and substitutions != common good!

Hording money != common good.

Friedman doctrine != common good.

Power to harm the producer and consumer based on product and service provider != common good. Didn't know price fixing is now classified as common good.

Billionaires exist by the exploitation of the common good.

How many billionaires push against living wages vs support them for all their employees for all their businesses?

Re: Hospitals and universities repurposing drugs at lower cost

#180

Post by doctorpangloss »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #175
doctorpangloss wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't matter if the "self insuring entity bears the risk for its insured." every word in that quote misses the point. it might as well say "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah." it doesn't tell you why UNH is an interesting and successful business, or why people are pissed off about it.

Uh ok bud.

haha okay, what i am trying to say is that from apple's point of view, it doesn't really matter if UNH is selling them a health insurance product or jacuzzi or eyebrow threading services or whatever.

apple employees say they want it, for some idiosyncratic reason apple is the party that gives it to them, and UNH is providing a uniquely cheap version of it. the gap between what employees think they are getting and what they are actually getting is huge. when you go on hacker news and people are talking about 80% medical loss ratios (that don't apply here, but that's not what you are spending your breath talking about) and "insureds" or whatever, you are enhancing the illusion.

that UNH has people carrying its water in this way: that's another reason, of many, that it is so big.

Post reply on HN