|
Post by lennymnkd on Jul 21, 2018 18:29:38 GMT -5
It looks like that day will come with the technology advancements/ online banking are you kidding not my money š driverless cars . Are they crazy / hey the option will be there not just for the cost savings it brings to people in need of it , but for overall better health.afrezza being a big part of the technology equation.
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Jul 21, 2018 18:33:19 GMT -5
The real way to address this issue is not to punish patients but to reward doctors for group success. Then when a drug like AFREZZA comes along they might be willing to take a more serious look, imho. Different sides of the same coin, I suppose. To me, insurance is a privilege. If I get to pay less for something than I otherwise would have, that's a win in my book. I win even more if I pay still less by taking better care of myself. So in my eyes, it's a reward, not a punishment for patients. Doctors have very little to no control of their patients so I don't think that would work, either. Curative medicine is the only way physicians can truly take the majority of responsibility for outcomes. For ongoing diseases that require constant treatment, a physician can only be responsible according to standards of care. Going above and beyond that is not usually attainable as standards are based on retrospective best outcomes. Besides, if you think your physician doesn't already have your best interest at heart and needs extra motivation, you probably shouldn't be going to them anymore. Furthermore, I wouldn't want a physician in charge of my care that is motivated by money. It adds a new complexity to their care that may not be in the best interest of their patients. You'll have physicians experimenting when they shouldn't in order to get their bonuses. Best practices are borne out of time and experience. Unfortunately, there's no way around it. To each their own, but I'd prefer a more conservative, tried and true approach.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on Jul 21, 2018 18:36:45 GMT -5
All good points. Everyone needs to be able to pick their own health insurance plan that covers their own needs and not have to pay additionally for the other people who do not take care of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by morgieporgie on Jul 21, 2018 19:15:56 GMT -5
With that outlook, we can look forward to the same outcomes in the next 20 years as the last.Ā I have zero interesting in someone monitoring my numbers and judging me on them or telling me what to do. I think you will find that is easily the majority opinion in the Type 1 community. It's a topic people are *very* sensitive about.Ā Everyone reaches their own settlement with diabetes over what they are prepared to do. It varies from obsessive control to deliberate neglect, but as long as it is an informed decision I will happily support it. Now if some uninvited 3rd party is going to start sticking their nose into how I manage my diabetes good luck with that, I just add their phone number to my spam callers list. That's not a problem. Non-compliance comes with a price in the new healthcare plan. People like this are why the idea was thought of to begin with. Why should everyone pay more than they should when you can weed out the people who make prices go higher to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 21, 2018 19:59:44 GMT -5
That's not a problem. Non-compliance comes with a price in the new healthcare plan. People like this are why the idea was thought of to begin with. Why should everyone pay more than they should when you can weed out the people who make prices go higher to begin with? That doesn't work because most people are insured via group plans by their employer. I would have to be absolutely insane (hopefully covered) to turn down my employers heavily subsidized plan and buy my own plan so I can be penalized! What is the option then? Every employer I have ever worked for self-insured. Do you really want your employer deciding how you should treat your condition? They ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) makes that a high risk option, plus HIPAA is going to complicate the medical site talking to the employer.
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Jul 21, 2018 20:41:24 GMT -5
My guess, if enacted, is those who do not provide that info will default into the more expensive plans and fail to get a rebate. I hope that this info does not become mandatory, as it will place both the physicians and patients in an uncomfortable position. The physicians may have to knowingly give information that will cost their patients more money, and the patients will have to give up privacy. That would hopefully place the onus on the patient, instead of being one more thing to needlessly burden physicians.
For those that want to cash in on the rebate, it should be voluntary information. While one could easily argue either for or against the right of insurers to know which conditions are being treated, middle ground should be to keep it the patient's choice to share for incentive if they choose. That would also allow them to bypass HIPAA and the disability act.
|
|
|
Post by joeypotsandpans on Jul 21, 2018 20:45:21 GMT -5
Did Nate talk about insurance issues and alternatives in his interview? I must of missed that part, perhaps one of the moderators should change the title of the thread to the boards opinion on insurance options. I'll just add that the compliance is much easier with no finger sticks and having a dreamboat with an ample daily supply of cartridges in your pocket...compared to the alternative of barbaric, obsolete, and unpredictable methods....ok carry on
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jul 21, 2018 21:00:29 GMT -5
Good point. Iām sure if you had to prick and stick yourself multiple times a day that you wouldnāt mind a little non-compliance.
|
|
|
Post by agedhippie on Jul 21, 2018 21:56:29 GMT -5
Did Nate talk about insurance issues and alternatives in his interview? I must of missed that part, perhaps one of the moderators should change the title of the thread to the boards opinion on insurance options. I'll just add that the compliance is much easier with no finger sticks and having a dreamboat with an ample daily supply of cartridges in your pocket...compared to the alternative of barbaric, obsolete, and unpredictable methods....ok carry on If compliance with Afrezza is supposed to be so great why was it so awful for STAT? If you are getting a third of a supervised group non-compliant on a trial lasting just four weeks that is bad.
|
|
|
Post by morgieporgie on Jul 21, 2018 22:02:08 GMT -5
Did Nate talk about insurance issues and alternatives in his interview? I must of missed that part, perhaps one of the moderators should change the title of the thread to the boards opinion on insurance options. I'll just add that the compliance is much easier with no finger sticks and having a dreamboat with an ample daily supply of cartridges in your pocket...compared to the alternative of barbaric, obsolete, and unpredictable methods....ok carry on If compliance with Afrezza is supposed to be so great why was it so awful for STAT? If you are getting a third of a supervised group non-compliant on a trial lasting just four weeks that is bad. Well that's real simple. No penalty/reward for being non-compliant or compliant. Tack on a fee of say 30% premium for the month and things change.
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Jul 21, 2018 22:09:13 GMT -5
Did Nate talk about insurance issues and alternatives in his interview? I must of missed that part, perhaps one of the moderators should change the title of the thread to the boards opinion on insurance options. I'll just add that the compliance is much easier with no finger sticks and having a dreamboat with an ample daily supply of cartridges in your pocket...compared to the alternative of barbaric, obsolete, and unpredictable methods....ok carry on If compliance with Afrezza is supposed to be so great why was it so awful for STAT? If you are getting a third of a supervised group non-compliant on a trial lasting just four weeks that is bad. Well, you know how it is...you canāt tell every diabetic what to do. (Isnāt that what you wrote in a separate thread?).
|
|
|
Post by cjm18 on Jul 21, 2018 22:15:46 GMT -5
If compliance with Afrezza is supposed to be so great why was it so awful for STAT? If you are getting a third of a supervised group non-compliant on a trial lasting just four weeks that is bad. Well that's real simple. No penalty/reward for being non-compliant or compliant. Tack on a fee of say 30% premium for the month and things change. Do we know why they were non compliant? Hypo fears from follow up dose?
|
|
|
Post by morgieporgie on Jul 21, 2018 22:22:39 GMT -5
Well that's real simple. No penalty/reward for being non-compliant or compliant. Tack on a fee of say 30% premium for the month and things change. Do we know why they were non compliant? Hypo fears from follow up dose? I'm sure they'll devise a good way to figure it out, although the Afrezza dramatically eases those fears.
|
|
|
Post by centralcoastinvestor on Jul 21, 2018 22:34:54 GMT -5
Did Nate talk about insurance issues and alternatives in his interview? I must of missed that part, perhaps one of the moderators should change the title of the thread to the boards opinion on insurance options. I'll just add that the compliance is much easier with no finger sticks and having a dreamboat with an ample daily supply of cartridges in your pocket...compared to the alternative of barbaric, obsolete, and unpredictable methods....ok carry on If compliance with Afrezza is supposed to be so great why was it so awful for STAT? If you are getting a third of a supervised group non-compliant on a trial lasting just four weeks that is bad. Actually the issue of non-compliance was addressed at the Annual Shareholders Meeting by Dr. Kendall. The patients that were non compliant were so used to the āstandard of careā that they did not trust that they would not go into hypoglycemia with a second dose following the first after eating. In other words, they couldnāt believe they could take a second dose safely even when the doctors instructed them to do so. Isnāt it amazing that the fear of hypos causes patients to defy doctors instructions in a closely monitored study.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 22, 2018 0:44:06 GMT -5
Did Nate talk about insurance issues and alternatives in his interview? I must of missed that part, perhaps one of the moderators should change the title of the thread to the boards opinion on insurance options. I'll just add that the compliance is much easier with no finger sticks and having a dreamboat with an ample daily supply of cartridges in your pocket...compared to the alternative of barbaric, obsolete, and unpredictable methods....ok carry on Point well taken. I am declaring world war three in mnkd.proboards.com/thread/10252/sglt-2-trial-stopped-early?page=1&scrollTo=153378 off topic regarding endpoints and compliance. so I can carry on. She's rearing up.
|
|