PB, Don't people buy an insurance policy, read the fine print, and if Rituxan is in the contract, then they get the treatment paid for? I suppose there are plenty of grey areas where treatment isn't clearly within the ambit of the contract so some dispute can arise. While admitting ignorance on the matter, wouldn't it be true that as soon as efficacy is shown, most health insurance policies would require payment for the treatment? I don't see why people would buy a policy which excluded treatments which are successful on a significant proportion of patients.
Personally, it seems a better deal to simply save your money, invest it, then if you need medical treatment, buy it. Why pay insurers, people careless of their health, fraudulent claims, taxes on insurance? Put all that money towards your own health savings scheme. But I know most people love insurance and prefer others to manage their affairs.
My quandary as a pay-or, is that the doctors are indifferent, saying since there is no clinical evidence, for other than on-label applications, there is no point using Rituxan for other CD20 problems [namely intermediate grade, large diffuse cell lymphoma]. Anyway, government wheels move slowly on approvals in New Zealand. I guess the big market is the USA, but there is a little point of view from a prospective customer. Wanting to pay, but nobody wants the money.
So IDPH profits are less than they should be in my opinion.
Maurice |
