Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17144)	4/20/2010 4:25:04 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Colchicine is now a branded gout drug, and why patients lose April 20, 2010 in Drugs and pharma Colchicine is a commonly used drug to treat gout. It used to cost pennies a pill, but now its price has since soared to $5 or more a pill. What happened? It’s an unintended consequence of FDA regulation. Colchicine had been used for centuries, but was caught up with the FDA’s zeal to regulate unapproved drugs. A profit-driven pharmaceutical company swooped in at the opportunity, and performed the studies showing that the drug, of course, was safe. It then began selling it at markedly higher prices, and is suing the generic manufacturers for infringing on its branded drug. Some of these manufacturers have stopped producing generic colchicine, while others have raised their prices. The biggest loser, of course, are patients. What normally would cost $5 to $10 a month, now costs up to $150 monthly. It’s a ridiculous situation that can only happen in America. There are three main ways to treat acute gout: colchicine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and oral steroids. With colchcine’s cost being an issue, I suspect more physicians will switch to anti-inflammatories, which can be more dangerous than colchicine in select patients. It will be interesting to see if other drug manufacturers will try the same approach with other old, previously unapproved, medications. It sure beats the expensive research and development needed to produce a new pill. kevinmd.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (17144)	4/20/2010 4:47:09 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<it would be better to have a system that didn’t require queuing in the first place.>>> That would necessarily be a very expense system. That means there is always idle capacity. It is inconceivable that there could be a health care system that would be absent horrific anecdotal and correctable screw ups. My point is this, you can't make judgement about a system based on a small sample of testimony or vignettes. You need analysis based on large and relevant samples.