|
|
Post by mango on Jul 9, 2020 9:41:25 GMT -5
Those AND requirements are total BS. Afrezza has shown in clinical trials to be non-inferior to RAAs. It has also shown to be SUPERIOR to RAAs and has a significantly better safety profile, significantly less hypos. This is crime against humanity. If I were a PWD I would be protesting this chit. Afrezza is the only insulin that does not have a warning in its label for localized insulin derived amyloidosis, a serious iatrogenic disease caused by subcutaneous insulins. That high risk alone should be good enough 😤 |
|
|
|
Post by shawnonafrezza on Jul 9, 2020 9:49:29 GMT -5
How can it be both non inferior and superior? One has a black label on it. If there are trials that it is superior in a real way than you should be protesting against current heads in charge because if you can't push a superior drug...
As far as not having a label for amyloidosis, it has other labels and people (PWD and doctors) are **still** worried about cancer. It's all relative and there's much that needs to be done.
Is the current state of things good? No. But as I se it what I wrote is accurate for what is happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 9, 2020 10:18:12 GMT -5
How can it be both non inferior and superior? One has a black label on it. If there are trials that it is superior in a real way than you should be protesting against current heads in charge because if you can't push a superior drug... As far as not having a label for amyloidosis, it has other labels and people (PWD and doctors) are **still** worried about cancer. It's all relative and there's much that needs to be done. Is the current state of things good? No. But as I se it what I wrote is accurate for what is happening. Shawn you know the way I am. Consider meat and diary cause cancer. Just sayin. In WW2 in Europe, cancer rates dropped along with Meat and diary product consumption. |
|
|
|
Post by shawnonafrezza on Jul 9, 2020 10:50:03 GMT -5
How can it be both non inferior and superior? One has a black label on it. If there are trials that it is superior in a real way than you should be protesting against current heads in charge because if you can't push a superior drug... As far as not having a label for amyloidosis, it has other labels and people (PWD and doctors) are **still** worried about cancer. It's all relative and there's much that needs to be done. Is the current state of things good? No. But as I se it what I wrote is accurate for what is happening. Shawn you know the way I am. Consider meat and diary cause cancer. Just sayin. In WW2 in Europe, cancer rates dropped along with Meat and diary product consumption. Quite off topic but I'm assuming this is the when Germany occupied Norway? You would then know tobacco and alcohol were also not available as well as forced caloric restriction. For some reach McDougall and Esselstyn seem to leave off those bits. Almost as bad and misleading as the china study but I guess if you only look at the factors you want you can make anything fit! |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 9, 2020 10:50:57 GMT -5
Shawn you know the way I am. Consider meat and diary cause cancer. Just sayin. In WW2 in Europe, cancer rates dropped along with Meat and diary product consumption. Quite off topic but I'm assuming this is the when Germany occupied Norway? You would then know tobacco and alcohol were also not available as well as forced caloric restriction. For some reach McDougall and Esselstyn seem to leave off those bits. heh. you do know me well. |
|
|
|
Post by cedafuntennis on Jul 9, 2020 12:04:54 GMT -5
How can it be both non inferior and superior? One has a black label on it. If there are trials that it is superior in a real way than you should be protesting against current heads in charge because if you can't push a superior drug... As far as not having a label for amyloidosis, it has other labels and people (PWD and doctors) are **still** worried about cancer. It's all relative and there's much that needs to be done. Is the current state of things good? No. But as I se it what I wrote is accurate for what is happening. Shawn you know the way I am. Consider meat and diary cause cancer. Just sayin. In WW2 in Europe, cancer rates dropped along with Meat and diary product consumption. --------------------- And many more people died from bullets and bombs, so just to show that this is relative too |
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jul 9, 2020 12:15:47 GMT -5
And, here I thought medicine was held to the "first do no harm" ethic. In this case, one must inject (literally harm oneself) and then prove they are in need of an alternative. Ridiculous position for an insurance company to take, but ridiculous is the norm when it comes to self-interested, profit-motivated, coverage decisions. Technically, the best insurance companies should hope to do is break-even each year. If they do better, they keep a portion of profits in reserves and return the rest to policy holders as a dividend or rebate. At worst, if the suffer a loss, they can cover with reserves or re-insurance. There's no excuse for witholding the best, most minimally invasive and adequately, if not superiorly effective treatment available. Anything less is just greed in one form or another. Insurance is NOT a “not for profit” industry. Ask Warren Buffett about his insurance holdings, his most profitable businesses. I understand insurance is not a not for profit business. Many things today are not what they were intended to be. Ask Ben Franklin about life insurance for the widows and children of fire fighters in early day Philadelphia. At any rate, from what I remember about Geico, a substantial portion of it's profitability was achieved by reinvesting the float, not necessarily from the core business of the insurance model itself. It's been a few years, so, maybe that's changed? And, in answer to SF, yes, I am a proud American investor who is sometimes disillusioned by the short-sighted, harmful, institutionalized greed of publicly traded companies at the expense of our citizens and consumers. At the end of the day, we all pay unnecessarily higher prices for this greed premium that really only lines the pockets of a chosen few. But, I digress. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 9, 2020 13:51:14 GMT -5
Insurance is NOT a “not for profit” industry. Ask Warren Buffett about his insurance holdings, his most profitable businesses. I understand insurance is not a not for profit business. Many things today are not what they were intended to be. Ask Ben Franklin about life insurance for the widows and children of fire fighters in early day Philadelphia. At any rate, from what I remember about Geico, a substantial portion of it's profitability was achieved by reinvesting the float, not necessarily from the core business of the insurance model itself. Indeed that is true for many insurance companies. They charge less in premium than what they pay out in claims with the difference (and profits) coming from gains on short-term investments. Ultimately though, the premium largely reflects the cost of claims and that is just as true in healthcare policies. If every drug was covered on Tier 1 and every procedure was covered with no restrictions, healthcare costs would be substantially higher as would insurance premiums. Medicare figured that out long ago and moved to the fixed prospective payment system in 1984, with most private insurers following suit in 1985 and 1986. It has been a race to the bottom ever since. Mannkind has never done the studies to show that its product pricing is justified by better long-term outcomes. If the drug is not Tier 1 they have only themselves to blame. The need to demonstrate performance superiority for new drugs and procedures has been around for at least 35 years; it should not be news. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Jul 9, 2020 15:34:20 GMT -5
I understand insurance is not a not for profit business. Many things today are not what they were intended to be. Ask Ben Franklin about life insurance for the widows and children of fire fighters in early day Philadelphia. At any rate, from what I remember about Geico, a substantial portion of it's profitability was achieved by reinvesting the float, not necessarily from the core business of the insurance model itself. Indeed that is true for many insurance companies. They charge less in premium than what they pay out in claims with the difference (and profits) coming from gains on short-term investments. Ultimately though, the premium largely reflects the cost of claims and that is just as true in healthcare policies. If every drug was covered on Tier 1 and every procedure was covered with no restrictions, healthcare costs would be substantially higher as would insurance premiums. Medicare figured that out long ago and moved to the fixed prospective payment system in 1984, with most private insurers following suit in 1985 and 1986. It has been a race to the bottom ever since. Mannkind has never done the studies to show that its product pricing is justified by better long-term outcomes. If the drug is not Tier 1 they have only themselves to blame. The need to demonstrate performance superiority for new drugs and procedures has been around for at least 35 years; it should not be news.MNKD product pricing. The more made, lowers the cost. non-inferior or equal HOWEVER NOT equal. the insurance company gets to pick which drug they will pay for. Superiority? like Zoloft over Prozac? |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Jul 9, 2020 15:56:10 GMT -5
And, here I thought medicine was held to the "first do no harm" ethic. In this case, one must inject (literally harm oneself) and then prove they are in need of an alternative. Ridiculous position for an insurance company to take, but ridiculous is the norm when it comes to self-interested, profit-motivated, coverage decisions. Technically, the best insurance companies should hope to do is break-even each year. If they do better, they keep a portion of profits in reserves and return the rest to policy holders as a dividend or rebate. At worst, if the suffer a loss, they can cover with reserves or re-insurance. There's no excuse for witholding the best, most minimally invasive and adequately, if not superiorly effective treatment available. Anything less is just greed in one form or another. Insurance is NOT a “not for profit” industry. Ask Warren Buffett about his insurance holdings, his most profitable businesses. Yep. Insurance companies' objective is to make profit for its owners. Maximize premiums and minimize paying claims. It's that simple. To the extent that providing good service to its clients is consistent with the above, then they want to do it so they encourage more business. Markado's post above cites "just greed in one form or another" and that is well stated. |
|
|
|
Post by mango on Jul 9, 2020 16:04:28 GMT -5
Why should the physician and patient not be able to decide what is best for the patient? Instead, we have insurance companies regulating medical decision making, and hindering patient access, and being a burden to health care.
|
|
|
|
Post by shawnonafrezza on Jul 9, 2020 16:14:25 GMT -5
Why should the physician and patient not be able to decide what is best for the patient? Instead, we have insurance companies regulating medical decision making, and hindering patient access, and being a burden to health care. Agreed. But in the end someone is paying in most first world countries and it's either private insurance or the government thus they'll have say on what you get. I'm not sure how to get around that unless it's all out of pocket which if it is then Afrezza would be a non started for even the most die hard. |
|
|
|
Post by sr71 on Jul 9, 2020 23:17:10 GMT -5
Why should the physician and patient not be able to decide what is best for the patient? Instead, we have insurance companies regulating medical decision making, and hindering patient access, and being a burden to health care. Agreed. But in the end someone is paying in most first world countries and it's either private insurance or the government thus they'll have say on what you get. I'm not sure how to get around that unless it's all out of pocket which if it is then Afrezza would be a non started for even the most die hard. Eagle Pharmacy: Cash Pay (no insurance), $99 to $199 per box www.insulinsavings.comIf I was diabetic, I'd be willing to pay that just so I could live a reasonably normal life. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Jul 10, 2020 6:31:02 GMT -5
Interesting coments in this thread about insurance, pricing, trials, and greed. I agree that corporations should be more like successful people who generally give back to the community in some form of philanthropic investment of time, labor, and money. It’s one of the reasons I iike Target. Check out their corporate charter. They’ve also been a good investment (and because I’m not as shrewd as many, also a too small proportion of my portfolio).
But I do find issue with the generalization of corporations as “greedy”. The profit motive drives competition and innovation which benefit the consumer. Where there is no profit motive there is little incentive to be efficient or produce a quality result. And I think those are the two main reasons why I’m a conservative voter. The government is inherently inept at anything where a corporation based on profit motive can compete with only one obvious exception I can think of which is war and operating a national military. Toll roads and rail roads tend to be much better operated and maintained, generally, than roads and bridges maintained by taxes. The issue there is where there is no profit, people in rural areas are then often underserved, so even my arguement is not unassailable, but in general, people should be very glad of corporations and profit motives and never forget it was the rise of mercantilism which established the New World and gave rise to a middle class.
And, oh yeah, I meant to say I agree, generally with most everything that’s been said on this thread about Afrezza being superior, but it’s on Mannkind management to prove it and to get insurance companies to cover it. And, I assume they will, just as soon as they can, which is a matter of profit...
|
|
|
|
Post by markado on Jul 10, 2020 8:20:44 GMT -5
Interesting coments in this thread about insurance, pricing, trials, and greed. I agree that corporations should be more like successful people who generally give back to the community in some form of philanthropic investment of time, labor, and money. It’s one of the reasons I iike Target. Check out their corporate charter. They’ve also been a good investment (and because I’m not as shrewd as many, also a too small proportion of my portfolio). But I do find issue with the generalization of corporations as “greedy”. The profit motive drives competition and innovation which benefit the consumer. Where there is no profit motive there is little incentive to be efficient or produce a quality result. And I think those are the two main reasons why I’m a conservative voter. The government is inherently inept at anything where a corporation based on profit motive can compete with only one obvious exception I can think of which is war and operating a national military. Toll roads and rail roads tend to be much better operated and maintained, generally, than roads and bridges maintained by taxes. The issue there is where there is no profit, people in rural areas are then often underserved, so even my arguement is not unassailable, but in general, people should be very glad of corporations and profit motives and never forget it was the rise of mercantilism which established the New World and gave rise to a middle class. And, oh yeah, I meant to say I agree, generally with most everything that’s been said on this thread about Afrezza being superior, but it’s on Mannkind management to prove it and to get insurance companies to cover it. And, I assume they will, just as soon as they can, which is a matter of profit... I agree with much of what you state, here. BUT, Health Insurance is one of the few industries that I would disagree with you on. Innovation in Insurance comes in the form of earning more for doing less for more people. That means, often, the profit comes at the expense of the consumer, and, not just financially - to their physical and mental health, well being, quality of life, family dynamics, etc. The ramifications of being underserved by insurance are manifold. It's not the same when one gets mistreated by insurance, as when one faces the poor quality involved in part recall or warranty issue on a vehicle. Therefore, the exceeding profit in insurance is undeserved - and, the greater shame is that we all pay for it. This could be one of the reasons Warren Buffet has pledged so much of his wealth to charity upon his death. Maybe, in some cases, he feels the money was too easily earned? I don't know WB, personally, so I won't presume to know his mind, but it is interesting to ponder the question. |
|
