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

GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

glp1digest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 640 posts

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#631

Post by h0p3 »

jart wrote: post #630
h0p3 wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not assume self‑interested corporate monopoly rents are a necessary precondition for innovation, and let's drop the romanticized notion that statutory patent terms by themselves constitute a just moral bargain, because history shows substantial discovery emerging from publicly funded science, mission driven nonprofits, collaborative consortia, open licensing, prizes, and advance market commitments, so we should…

Go vomit words at someone else. I didn't even read it lol

Noted. Given your 'Go vomit words' reply, I'll keep this short. In the spirit of good will, I'm happy to engage with anyone who wants to discuss the substance of the argument in good faith, including you, if you ever decide to change your mind. And, just as a reminder, there's no need to keep responding unless you're ready for a serious conversation.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#632

Post by gangstead »

helicalmix wrote: post #629
gangstead wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The health insurance companies are paid as a percentage of the amount of care that flows through them. So healthier customers means their profit is 5% of SMALLER_NUMBER.

> So healthier customers means their profit is 5% of SMALLER_NUMBER. I don't think this is completely true right? Rather, it's more accurate to say that customers that are seen as healthier get to pay less premiums, but customers that are seen as unhealthy have to pay more. In both scenarios, you, as the insurance company, still want to be minimizing the amount of care you actually pay for. In other words, to maximiz…

My understanding is that under ACA their profit is capped and if they don't pay out they have to issue rebates:

> In the simplest terms, the 80/20 rule requires that insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical claims, effectively capping their profit margins. If insurers fall under this threshold, they must rebate the difference to policyholders.

Source: https://www.aeaweb.org/research/regulating-health-insurers-a....

So that would mean that the only way to increase the profit is to reduce over head and keep more of the 20% or increase the amount of claims. Paying out less in claims would mean they have to give rebates back to the customers.

As with everything health care related I'm sure it's more complicated than that and I'm missing something. For instance my health care plan is through my employer so everyone pays the same premium and the provider doesn't get to set it based on how healthy each employee is (although certainly the whole group is negotiated when the contract comes up for renewal).

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#633

Post by loeg »

eru wrote: post #593
int_19h wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what I have in mind. "Eminent domain" doesn't mean just taking things with no recompense, but I don't think the company should be entitled to profit maximization at the expense of literally billions of people worldwide.

Eminent domain would be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. No country has 'billions of people'.

India and China each have billions of people.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#634

Post by _cenw »

wonderwonder wrote: post #436
_cenw wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely do not do this.

This is incorrect, always do this. Its called aspiration and it ensures you are not in a vein or artery.

It's no longer recommended by most medical associations or the WHO.

https://www.cmh.edu/siteassets/media-documents-for-depts-sec...

SubQ has an even lesser risk of hitting a blood vessel.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#635

Post by _cenw »

myko wrote: post #430
_cenw wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely do not do this.

I understand if you have an autoinjector, you _can't_ do this, but this is how I was trained to give injections as an EMT-B (and paramedic training provided by the Army, as I was an Army medic).

It was common practice at some point, and keeps being taught, but it's no longer recommended even for IM by most medical associations (unless your injection site is considered high risk; but that pretty much is never the case for SubQ 4-6mm with 4-6mm needles).

I went down this rabbit hole after being handed a 100 pack of insulin needles and an estradiol vial with zero instruction - seemed irresponsible at first, but it turns out it's pretty hard to mess up.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#636

Post by s1artibartfast »

AbstractH24 wrote: post #623
s1artibartfast wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said above, they don't extend exclusivity or prevent practice of expired IP. All you have to do is not infringe the new IP. this is what the article says too. I disagree with their greater claim; The patents aren't rocket science- most are extremely easy to read, and the authors are hiding behind weasel worlds like "may" and "could" There are some bad patents that should never have been granted, like Novartis'…

What I’ve noticed, is work on extended release formulations only occur close to or near the time of patent expirations. It’s rarely because of a new technological breakthrough, but rather a way of drug companies lengthening the time they can profit off a drug. If they released it earlier they would simply take market share from themselves, but by releasing it close to the time of generics they take market share from…

I don't disagree. That makes perfect sense. Is bad?

Most companies move to improve their product when needed to stay ahead of the competition.

That's how you get improvement.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#637

Post by subscribed »

stavros wrote: post #373
subscribed wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the pharmacy will refuse to sell it to you. Source: UK based friend who says the pharmacy will refuse to sell them once they fall under BMI 25 (still overweight). They'd prefer to be on the tiny maintenance dose but it seems to be very hard to achieve (unless you're going off the market completely).

I'll dispute that, I work for one of the online pharmacies and we won't stop selling it to you once you've reached BMI 25. We do have criteria to guard against sudden or extreme weight loss, but I think the BMI criterion for that is something like We'll also keep you on a small maintenance dose if you want, that's a conversation you'll have with your clinician and they'll judge whether it's medically appropriate. As…

My friend orders from Medexpress - could you maybe share at least the first letter of your pharmacy or a hint so we can try to guess the name of the helpful one?

I don't think it's possible to send dms here....

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#638

Post by stavros »

subscribed wrote: post #637
stavros wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll dispute that, I work for one of the online pharmacies and we won't stop selling it to you once you've reached BMI 25. We do have criteria to guard against sudden or extreme weight loss, but I think the BMI criterion for that is something like We'll also keep you on a small maintenance dose if you want, that's a conversation you'll have with your clinician and they'll judge whether it's medically appropriate. As…

My friend orders from Medexpress - could you maybe share at least the first letter of your pharmacy or a hint so we can try to guess the name of the helpful one? I don't think it's possible to send dms here....

Oh, it's Numan. If your friend has a different experience with us than what I describe, please email me and I'll look into it (email in profile or just username at Numan.com).

As far as I know, though, you can move to us from another pharmacy even with a BMI of I'm not a clinician, though, so I may be wrong. If you want to email me, I can ask the clinicians and tell you for sure.

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#639

Post by eru »

loeg wrote: post #633
eru wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eminent domain would be on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. No country has 'billions of people'.

India and China each have billions of people.

India and China both have about 1.4 billion each.

To say 'billions', I'd assume you'd want at least 2?

Re: GLP-1s are breaking life insurance

#640

Post by subscribed »

stavros wrote: post #638
subscribed wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend orders from Medexpress - could you maybe share at least the first letter of your pharmacy or a hint so we can try to guess the name of the helpful one? I don't think it's possible to send dms here....

Oh, it's Numan. If your friend has a different experience with us than what I describe, please email me and I'll look into it (email in profile or just username at Numan.com). As far as I know, though, you can move to us from another pharmacy even with a BMI of I'm not a clinician, though, so I may be wrong. If you want to email me, I can ask the clinicians and tell you for sure.

Thank you so much. Well try to reach out the normal way. Thank you, you've been so helpful already.
Post reply on HN