The fact that patience fear and anxiety are being taken advantage of, makes you ponder and asked the following questions. Where is our human empathy? What is our social responsibility? Is money more important than human life? Should pharmaceutical companies raise the price of older prescription to the same cost of newer prescriptions? What happen when doctors stand up against the pharmaceutical companies and the media exposing excessive greed? Seeing patience going bankrupt while CEOs of drug companies and doctors are living large, is absolutely despicable. In this assignment, I will attempt to bring to light my opinion about any negotiation, possible conflicts of interest and what our social responsibility entails. Since the highly successful …show more content…
Leonard Salt spoke about the financial toxicity of these drug price and how pharmaceutical companies are clearly taking advantage of patience. Pharmaceutical companies are completely aware that cancer diagnosis is one of the leading cause of bankruptcy in America, yet, they turned a blind eye to this reality. Why does this occur; especially, knowing the insurance company will pay? Yes, the insurance company will pay, but only a portion, leaving the patient to remunerate the remaining cost. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in America, such a shame. While government official or other regulatory leaders in other countries negotiate the cost of drugs, the old laissez-faire ‘let it be’ mentality remain strong in America; essentially, demonstrating the prevailing capitalism system. Since Medicaid endure the hefty price tag, they should have negotiating power over the final cost of the …show more content…
Upon seeing the cost of Zaltrap and recognizing its effect, Dr. Saltz became infuriated. Why? Avastin has the same chemical, provide the same result and cost lower; however, Zaltrap has more toxicity and cost twice the amount of Avastin, as Saltz called their comparison, “like coke and pepsi.” (Bonin, 2014) Had it not been for the rejection of Dr. Saltz, Dr. Daniel Barrett, the media, Medicaid and others, the cost of Zaltrap would have spiraled through the doors of insurance companies and into the pockets of patience, sending even more bankrupt or decease. Doctors who willing accept kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies for forcing their drugs on patience, have committed a conflict of interest. Patience has a free open market; therefore, no doctor should force one drug over another, for the sake of a payout. Those who participate in such behavior, should face disciplinary actions, including but not limited to termination by the medical board, preventing them from working in the medical field and
A doctor should always take into consideration what is best for their patients without being influenced by anyone. In Stephanie Saul’s article “Drug Makers Pay for Lunch as they Pitch” she discusses how pharmaceutical companies use free lunches as an incentive to influence Doctors to prescribe their brand drugs. Many see this situation of pharmaceutical companies purchasing meals for a Doctor’s entire office as not having any effect on the doctor’s decision to prescribe their brand. The reality is that these free lunches do influence a doctor to prescribe a certain brand drug when writing a patient’s prescription. A doctor should consider what is the best option for a patient something that is affordable and if the case is that a name brand drug is the best option it should not be influenced by the pharmaceutical company in any way.
A new oral pharmaceutical drug for type- two diabetes had been approved for clinical use, it was called Compound 17392. Marketing companies instantly wanted to have prescribers adopt and sell the product and researchers wanted to further investigate previous reports of liver toxicity in patients. Now since paying patients to try new pharmaceutical drugs was an issue due to it appearing to interfere with clinical judgement and upholding the duty to do what is best for the patient, a new idea of furthering research for the drug came into play. The idea included recruiting a group of physicians who were in the top ten percent of prescribers for type-two diabetes. Following regulations put in place by researchers, these physicians were to enter eligible patients into the trial for Compound
The truth is the medical community holds the patient hostage for profits off of the remedies procured from people at no cost to them. Scientist play the game of supply and demand with a vengeance. When children are ill, mothers are dying there is no dollar amount that can be equated with the preservation of life. Scientist, researchers and pharmaceutical companies know this and they attach exuberant prices to the remedies, treatments and cures. When the science community found a way to control HIV/ AIDS, very few people were able to get treatment because it was very expensive.
On addition, had to pay the ACCC’s costs. Primary stakeholders: o Health professionals and buyers who have been informing and guiding parents and children on responsible use of the medication would affected the most. The Specific pain case would have resulted in losing trustworthiness and honesty between the health professionals and the patients. The buyers in situation would have lost faith in the company and might prefer choosing another brand.
To demonstrate this, Skloot mentions, “the ruling didn’t prevent commercialization; it just took patients out of the equation and emboldened scientists to commodify tissues in increasing numbers”. It becomes apparent that taking a doctor to court in the 1950s often had no effect, except that the doctor would be more reluctant to share his or her research with fellow scientists. Today, however, there are more laws in place and if a doctor was found to have broken the law, her or she would lose their medical
Your discussion presents an interesting perspective on business principles. Managing financial needs of a hospital and patient’s satisfaction goes hand and hand in the hospital field. This also can create a negative impact when it comes to prescribing pain medication. An ethical dilemma arises for emergency room providers who in relation to new reimbursement tactics centered upon patient satisfaction scores (Kelly, Johnson, & Harbison, 2016)
Nowadays it seems like legal drugs are more expensive than illegal ones. This dilemma occurs because the pharmaceutical industry affects the economy significantly. Although the United States is a mixed market economy, there are instances where the economy seems like a free market economy. A free market economy allows companies to determine the prices of goods free from government intervention. The pharmaceutical industry, despite several regulations set by the food and drug administration, is a free market economy.
The point in his article is that different treatments cost different amounts, sometimes very significantly different, yet both get the same result. By doing comparative effectiveness research, patients can get the quality care they deserve but at a much cheaper cost. (Health care reform debate in the United States,
Americans are spending too much money on medications that they don’t even need. “Americans spend an average of $1,000 per person, per year on prescription drugs.” The people that are spending thousands a year are the ones that keep going back to the doctor 's office to get prescription medicines and getting their doctors to give them the prescriptions. Meanwhile drug prices rise quickly due to unnecessary prescriptions. The price of a drug can be more than 50 times to $750 a pill.2013 to 2014, the amount of money people spent on drugs rose 13 percent.
Her last valid point is that patients whose symptoms are misdiagnosed and face the consequences of dealing with worsening symptoms may lose all hope. In losing their hope, Lopresti states that patients with mental illnesses would then rather spend their lives enduring their severe symptoms over risking another visit to a medical professional who might make their situation worse than it was to begin with. However, there are some who say that government regulation of prescriptions are
In the film Escape Fire the Fight to Rescue American Healthcare, there were many insightful examples of why our Unites States healthcare revolves around paying more and getting less. The system is designed to treat diseases rather than preventing them and promoting wellness. In our healthcare industry, there are many different contributors that provide and make up our system. These intermediaries include suppliers, manufacturers, consumers, patients, providers, policy and regulations. All these members have a key role in the functionality of the health care industry; however, each role has its positives and negatives.
The physician also risks not getting paid by the insurance company if they do not administer the less expensive treatment. This conflict could also be
Every citizen in the United States has individual rights protected by the Constitution. This protection also includes businesses that have gone through the legal process to become a legal entity ; more commonly known as becoming a corporation. Many times these individual rights, protected by the Constitution, conflict with the common good and as history shows, the courts consistently side with the common good when faced with a case that pits these two against each other. Big Pharma are corporations exercising their individual rights to market, and sell their product to consumers. In the process, the common good is suffering.
In pharmacy practice, there are always multiple solutions for a single problem. Practitioner can suggest on the medication and dosage regimen, yet the final decision should lie on the hand of patient. (Robert J.C. et al., 2012) Most of the time, patient does not understand his/her own medical condition and medication plan, let alone making decision on it. Shared decision making, patient activation and broader patient engagement can significantly improve the treatment outcomes.
blah states “Increased competition is proven to result in lower prices, which in turn contribute to improved access to medicines”, it was the Developed Nations which benefited from the profit gained from using the resources of the developing nations. Prohibitive drug prices are often the result of strong intellectual property protection. It is therefore unsurprising that places like the United Nations, Japan, China and a few in Western Europe, have fought for stronger control and higher levels of property rights laws. These nations argue for strong global protection, as they have