Not a usual question

[Martin1337]

Hey people, iv been reading that in the US you either have to pay quite a fair sum of money for insurance or something stupid like £1000 a pill for 12 weeks straight.

What happens to people like me who have relatively no money(Im 27) both my parents have OK jobs (Police force and Council) would that be taken into consideration due to my age or would i be seen as a separate entity?

As Universities in the UK will only give a certain amount of money to students only if their parents earn under a certain amount, is healthcare like that in the US?

Healthcare in the US seems so unfair because here EVERYTHING is free.

Iv been reading people can go to certain programs if they don't have insurance but how easy is it to get the meds from that?

Just curious, cheers  

[Lynn K]

Everyone's situation is different. I have insurance through my employer. I took Harvoni for 24 weeks because of my treatment history and having cirrhosis. Those 24 weeks cost my insurance $1125x24x7=$189,000 or what ever price the negotiated for the meds. I paid $5 per refill so $30. Those of us with good insurance are fortunate. Others had to appeal or find other methods like getting meds from India.

And some were never able to get treatment.

[gnatcatcher]

Martin, I was another lucky American. I happened to have prescription coverage with the insurer who had made a deal with Harvoni's manufacturer Gilead, so I was able to get my preferred treatment for $5/bottle = $15 total. I know an American who, due to a mental disability, has Medicare for her insurance, and she got treated with Harvoni for only a small co-pay. Really poor Americans have Medicaid; I don't know how much they themselves have to pay for treatment.

I thought only America had crazy health insurance, but from reading these forums, I have learned that in Canada, each province has different policies. In the UK (at least a year or two ago), the powers that be were trying to make people take the older, much more difficult (but much cheaper) treatments that have much lower cure rates. It was hard for Australians to get treatment until after a lot of advocacy work by many people. The list goes on . . . .

Gnatty

[I fightis thetitis]

Hey Martin,

There are generics from India that people are using that work. You're lucky you have Gov health care.
I had to jump onto Obamacare to get my 24 weeks of Harvoni after being denied by my insurance from my small business.

If I didn't have that option I would have had to take a second mortgage, take loans for $190k, ect. Without Obamacare my pre existing condition would have keep me even further in the deep end. There are many in my situation.

I'm one of the ones who can say Obama MAY have saved my life. And I am (was) a lifelong GOP. I wonder what the future will be here with the aggressive eagerness for new pres to repeal/replace.
I consider my self VERY lucky on the timing of my tx.

Good luck to you!

Best always,

Greg 

[Lynn K]

And just in case some are not aware the actual name of Obama care is the Affordable Care Act. Obama care was a name some used for the Affordable Care Act for various reasons.

[I fightis thetitis]

Yes.. and the acronym is "ACA"
However, I always refer to it as Obama care as that is the name it is most recognized internationally.

Sorry for hi jacking your thread Martin.. I am considering changing my username to Threadkiller.

Best to all,

Greg

[Lynn K]

I just mentioned for the sake of clarity some folks may be under the impression the ACA and Obama Care are two different things due to the dual names, the official name and the unofficial nickname.

[andrew j]

I live in New Zealand.

According to Al Jazeera news (which we get here) - the Republicans came out a couple of days ago saying they were NOT going to repeal Obamacare - not without first having a very close look at it.

Presumably there are a number of blue-collar workers, and others of more modest means - now counted among the Republican support-base - who would be left out in the cold if it was repealed.

[Angelica]

Well it is true, in the UK there is free healthcare. However, the NHS  has put a cap on the number of patients a hospital can treat every months, so some people may go the generic route.

ttps://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/28/nhs-abandoning-thousands-by-rationing-hepatitis-c-drugs

[andrew j]

So the NHS has to prioritise treatment? - which I guess is OK if you can treat all the people that need treating now.
The article states that 10,000 per year are currently being treated.
Again - the price of the drugs is the stumbling block to more universal coverage.
(Those prices still seem excessively high?!) ...

[Angelica]

An estimated 215 thousands in the UK. 10 thousand a year, you do the maths.

Do you really think is OK? Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[andrew j]

Thinking out loud, Angelica. I must stop doing that!

You are right, of course.

Whereas Australia was able to bulk buy, and so get good prices for their meds, the UK is hamstrung by of the size of its population.
You know - I really thought that prices would have fallen more than they have by now.

[Gaj]

Australia has a population of 23 million and an estimated 230,000 with HCV. *(see 'good news' story below)

The UK has a population of 64 million and while their HCV population is generally reported at 215,000 by most sources that seems quite low compared with Aust and the US. I did find the below 2015 document from the UK government which claims:

It is estimated that 0.5-1 % of the UK population has a chronic HCV infection.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/blood-borne-viruses/hepatitis-c.htm

That would seem to indicate their numbers could actually be 300,000 to 600,000. If this is correct then I suspect that treating 10,000 p.a. would be struggling to keep up with new infections but I haven't studied it in great detail.

Angelica, whatever the correct numbers I hope that things improve soon for those reliant on the UK's NHS. In the meantime it appears quite a few of your citizens are taking charge of their own health and sourcing generics from overseas which is legal and a valid choice if they can afford it and purchase from reputable sources. It's just a shame that the NHS is not more supportive of monitoring those patients who it cannot provide with funded treatment.

Andrew,

$30-50k is most definitely not "bargain basement" for medications that cost about $100 to manufacture and are available for <$1,000 in countries like India and Bangladesh. Making such claims is playing into the hands of the pharmaceutical companies marketing departments.


*(Aust now probably has less than 200,000 as we treated over 30,000 patients in the last year http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/eradication-of-hepatitis-c-on-the-horizon-researchers-say/8289542 )

[andrew j]

Gaj,

I was being cynical - or facetious ... or whatever the appropriate word is.
The prices are of course completely outrageous.
[Also], I've just been back to check the article - and had misread (or overridden) the prices quoted there.
Bearing in mind that the article is a few months old - the prices are actually pretty-much where I thought they'd be.

I should check my facts more carefully. Again.

Going too fast. Again.

[Gaj]

Hi Andrew,

No worries mate, it can be difficult getting the subtleties of sarcasm/cynicism via social media. 

Cheers from across 'the ditch'. 

[Angelica]

Gaj,
" In the meantime it appears quite a few of your citizens are taking charge of their own health and sourcing generics from overseas which is legal and a valid choice if they can afford it and purchase from reputable sources. It's just a shame that the NHS is not more supportive of monitoring those patients who it cannot provide with funded treatment."

Yes, you are right. Had I not been offered treatment, I was planning to do the same.

 

[Angelica]

andrew j
Thinking out loud is ok. Only stop if you want to.

[andrew j]

Thank you both for your understanding - and good vibes!