Live data from Hacker News

Chloroquine, past and present

blogs.sciencemag.org

271–280 of 320 posts

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#271
post #264
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said physicians get paid a couple hundred bucks for each visit. I provided the source that says how much a physician gets paid by medicare for an established outpatient visit. An outpatient visit for a new patient (99203) is 1.42 wRVU + 1.48 facility RVU + 0.13 malpractice RVU = 2.14 RVUs = $109 for Medicare. A complex new visit (99205) is 3.17 wRVU + 2.40 facility RVU + 0.28 malpractice RVU = 5.85*36.06 = 210 do…

And like I said, billing for normal patients isn't determined on medicare/medicaid rates and those are widely noted to be far lower than break-even let alone private billing rates. > The researchers found the gap between the prices Medicare and private insurers pay hospitals increased from 2015 to 2017. Specifically, the researchers found private insurers in 2015 on average paid 236% of Medicare rates, and by 2017 th…

I get that a heart attack hospitalization is expensive, $55k on average. The physician is not pocketing all of that $55k. They aren't the ones charging that, that is the hospital. The physician will get ~$1k of that (look below for the calculation). Please try to be charitable in your evaluation of my ability to reason here.

I'm not trying to change the topic from office visit to heart attack. I provided the RVU calculation for the outpatient visits. That is how much the physicians are getting paid. You said that physicians are making a couple hundred bucks of each outpatient visit, which I don't believe is accurate, and I provided the calculation of why I don't think that is accurate. The total cost of the visit can be $250, but the physician is not getting anywhere near that.

I don't think it's accurate to say that they will be able clear $1000/hr. There is additional time needed to document each patient (often equal to the amount of time seeing the patient). I think seeing 3 visits in that time is plausible, but the physician is not getting that whole $250 (which is the point I'm trying to make). The clinic revenue may be $750 for that hour, but that needs to cover all of the overhead, and the physician will get whatever is left.

Make sure you are looking for sources that compare how much the private insurance pays physicians compared to medicare in particular vs how much they pay hospitals compared to medicare. The numbers will be different.

The $53,384 is what the hospital charges for the heart attack. The physician only gets the wRVUs for the services they provide in the hospital (if they're employed), so the 12.56 wRVU for the cardiac revascularization + the admission history and physical (2.61 wRVU CPT 99222) however many days of progress notes (2.00 wRV 1x each day - CPT 99233) in the hospital and the discharge summary (1.28 wRVU - CPT 99238) they write for the patient. So if a patient got revascularized and were in the hospital for 4 days before being discharged that's 12.56 + 2.61 (admission day) + 2 * 2.00 (2 inpatient days) + 1.28 (discharge day) = 20.45 wRVUs for the admission = $737 for the physician for that hospitalization.

I'm trying to make the distinction here between how much the hospital gets paid vs. the physician who provided the care. It's not accurate to say the physician is making $53,384 for the heart attack hospitalization, that is what the hospital is charging. The physician may make ~$1000 for an admission like that. If the physician is self-employed or in a group, they will charge for the facility RVUs and malpractice RVUs as well, because they need to cover the overhead of having a clinic to see the patient after the hospitalization.

If your bill breaks down the overhead for the clinic separate from the physician charge, then I'll agree that the physician made the $250 straight cash, but I don't think that is in any way the average amount any kind of doctor will make off an outpatient visit. Look at what you're suggesting, that a physician makes $1000/hr * 2080 workable hours in a year (not likely a physician only works 40hrs a week..) = $2+ million a year.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#272
I realize that the FDA serves a purpose, but in dire situations I think anyone should be able to take any drug if they sign a document stating they will hold no one liable for adverse affects of a drug that might have chance of saving their lives. Why does one have to follow the state's one-size-fits-all rules when their life is at stake and any potential harm is limited to themselves?

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#273

I realize that the FDA serves a purpose, but in dire situations I think anyone should be able to take any drug if they sign a document stating they will hold no one liable for adverse affects of a drug that might have chance of saving their lives. Why does one have to follow the state's one-size-fits-all rules when their life is at stake and any potential harm is limited to themselves?

It’s an interesting question what aspects of human behavior the government should be able to regulate.

A couple of points beside that are 1) this would incentivize drug companies to use desperate patients as a low-cost way of screening drug candidates — “free” data with all liability signed away. And 2) the externalities of a person being injured can be huge, so the possible harm isn’t really limited to that patient.

Edit: With some reasonable guardrails, I think “right to try” makes sense. I personally don’t know what the guardrails should be.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#274
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US DHHS: "18 months or longer" https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6819-covid-19-respon... UK government: "at least a year." https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-social-distancing-nee... Modelling: "2 months on 1 month off until a vaccine is developed". https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s... /shrug It's unprecedented and I tend to agree with you that at some point the economic carnage i…

http://www.euromomo.eu/ The all-cause mortality rate in Europe has been dropping in the past few weeks and is now well below normal levels. To me this looks like people have been overdoing the whole stay indoors and avoid any sort of risky behavior.

Europe is not Italy. Europe has a different population age mix (younger), and broader Europe is not under the same quarantine measures as Italy either.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#275

I realize that the FDA serves a purpose, but in dire situations I think anyone should be able to take any drug if they sign a document stating they will hold no one liable for adverse affects of a drug that might have chance of saving their lives. Why does one have to follow the state's one-size-fits-all rules when their life is at stake and any potential harm is limited to themselves?

Because when those adverse effects permanently disable those people the government will likely at some point have to pay for their care.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It may be useful in combo with other drugs Weren't the first studies done in combination with azithromycin (which is bizzare, as that's an antibiotic)?

The azithromycin was given to some of the patients with viral pneumonia as there is a chance of reinfection with bacterial pneumonia. Astonishing and unexpectedly, the covid19 virus was completely wiped out in all the HCQ+azithromycin patients but only in a bit over half the HCQ alone patients. So just as an antiparasite drug surprisingly once was found to also work as an antiviral, azithromycin has unexpectedly been…

the problem is quite simple: the virus infects your body, damages your lungs, and fucks up your immune system. Then you get an opportunistic pneumonia

The mechanism is also quite simple: administer them both together and the antimalarials kill the virus, the antibiotics kill the pneumonia.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#277
post #146

This is pretty interesting. I've been taking Plaquenil (hydroxochloroquine) regularly for 6 months now to control an auto-immune disease, and I came down with potential symptoms of covid-19 2 weeks ago, but it was very mild - just a sore throat and cough that lasted 4 days, and I had a slight fever the first night. I self quarantined just in case, but after recovering thought I must have just caught a cold, since my…

Please remember that greater than 90 percent of people who have covid like symptoms test negative. So while there's a chance you had it and recovered, it's very small. Stay safe and assume you're still vulnerable.

Moreover, please assume you're still shedding. You may still be contagious.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#278

Is there not an argument that given chloroquine's apparent efficacy, albeit statistically weakly or improperly demonstrated (so far), along with its long history of relative safety in anti-malarial prophylaxis (with known caveats), set against an exponential growth in dangerous pneumonia - it is therefore rational to want to at least offer it to all suspected cases and healthworkers in balance of the serious risks th…

In the discussion of the study over on Reddit, there were anecdotes of physicians prescribing hydroxychloroquine for themselves and their families, in enough numbers to make it difficult for patients previously prescribed it.

https://twitter.com/ml_barnett/status/1241172371404357633

https://twitter.com/JeffreyLowMD/status/1241172812762468353

https://twitter.com/amberwvzz/status/1241196003425992704

From a convo with a pharmacist friend:

> This is 100% true and I hate doctors for it

> Record today was for 360 tablets with 2 refills, please fill them all concurrently, they'll pay cash

> 2nd place was an out-of-state opthamologist who couldn't spell it or provide proper dosage

> Md's are being real dicks around here

> Keeping in mind it's a necessary medication for people with lupus or arthritis, too

> It's an anti-malarial that treats rheumatism

> It's not crazy expensive or anything, but it's not something you keep lots of on hand

> So these md's trying to start a run on it are being shitty to the point of unethical

> I asked the opthamologist for their npi/dea so I could try to report them to some kind of body, but he hung up

> I'm legit furious about it

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#279
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might need to check for G6PD genetic deficiency before taking it though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose-6-phosphate_dehydrogen...

right. we need to wait for FDA approval. and since it's prescription only, you need to check with your doctor.

Dude. Chloroquine is FDA approved. Any doctor can prescribe it for any reason today. The drug company is not allowed to advertise or promote it for COVID without approval for that indication, but any doctor can prescribe it for COVID if in his/her professional opinion, it is appropriate.

Re: Chloroquine, past and present

#280
post #254
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society is about to ask the doctors to work in a crisis situation, for long hours, possibly under-equipped, surrounded by death and disease on a scale that we might not have seen for 100 years. We desperately need them to be in good health. We're asking them to be exposed to very high volumes of virus, potentially risking a bad infection. We're probably not going to pay them any more than usual either. It isn't total…

> It would be a shame if they thought it worked but government regulation prevents them from prescribing it to ordinary patients. It doesn't. It's FDA-approved, it's just off-label for this use. > It isn't totally clear to me what you are implying, but there isn't anything wrong with them stocking up on hydroxychloroquine if it is likely to be effective against COVID-19 lmao are you implying that doctors are self-pre…

Do you have a link or any kind of citation for your final statement, or was it just a cheap shot at Trump for saying he is hopeful about a medication?
Post reply on HN