Sovaldi, a new treatment for Hepatitis C, costs $1000 a pill. Members of Congress have begun an investigation as to how Gilead Sciences, its manufacturer, arrived at this price. Advocacy groups are also raising the problems of cost. We already know that for some of the drugs which cost as much or more that prices can’t always be justified. In this case, however, analysts and those reporting on the consequences of such pricing point to weaknesses in our health care delivery system. The drug can cure Hepatitis C with less side effects than previous ones. A whole course of treatment costs about $84,000. The number of people in the U.S. estimated to need this treatment is about 3.2-milllion. Since many of them are on Medicaid, it is feared that the costs to the States would be quite heavy. Some also fear that although those using Sovaldi would involve a small percentage of those insured by Medicare, that it could raise Medicare medical premiums by 2 to 3 points. But most interesting is the stance of the insurance companies. Since a whole course of Sovaldi is a cure, a problem arises due to the cost being born all at once over a period of weeks, not years like HIV/AIDS. Because people change jobs frequently and therefore are likely to also change medical insurance, it is feared that the insurance company which pays for the treatment would not be the insurance company that ends up benefiting from having borne the costs. The results are that Sovaldi has created an uproar in many circles—one that can be said to be a sad statement on our health care system. Yet, if we could solve some of the issues being raised, our health care delivery system would not only improve, it would be much cheaper.
August 2014
-
Pushed to Ponder
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a recent CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria that Russian President Vladimir Putin bears at least some responsibility for the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. “I think if there were any doubt it should be gone by now, that Vladimir Putin, certainly indirectly—thorough his support of the insurgents in eastern Ukraine and the supply of advanced weapons and, frankly, the presence of Russian Special Forces and Intelligence agents—bears responsibility for what happened.” Even without too much parsing, her words look more than just a statement, they hold profound implications. They point to the idea that indirect responsibility is valid. Wouldn’t that mean that manufacturers, suppliers, and other intermediaries in the chain of any weapons of war and destruction bear responsibility too? Jan Oberg of Sweden’s Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research thinks so and highlighted it in one of his TFF Press Info communications.
It’s quite possible Hillary Clinton didn’t mean to go so far when she declared Putin indirectly responsible. Whether she meant to draw attention to the implications or not, the statement would have to imply that the U.S. holds responsibility when it supplies arms to groups such as the Syrian rebels or the Israeli military. It’s quite doubtful Mrs. Clinton meant to engage in a philosophical discourse on the morality of the war machinery, but one has to be grateful she did. It pushes us into pondering it.