Although Kalydeco has been approved, it is unavailable in the UK to most of the patients who qualify for it as it is undergoing a "pricing assessment".
My argument is two fold:
1) Measure such as "life expectancy" are a poor indicator of the quality of health care one receives.
2) Although the US healthcare system has many problems, it covers many, many drugs, often used to treat serious illnesses such as CF and cancer that aren't covered by countries that have single payer systems.
You are the second person on HN to describe me as hostile. I am not. Feverish and crabby perhaps, but not aimed at you. Sorry.
I have gotten off 8 or 9 prescription drugs. I strongly disagree with measuring quality of life by how doped to the gills you can get on someone else's dime. And the measure you dismiss as "blunt" -- longevity -- has its good points as a rule of thumb measure. Stuff that kills usually isn't exactly good for your quality of life prior to killing you.
The drug in question is designed to help a tiny portion of the CF population which is an "orphan disease" to begin with. It is deadly and involves a lot of suffering, so it is a "dread disease". I think using a new drug that has the potential to help a mere 1500 Americans as your example because of the strong emotions associated with "saving" someone from something so awful amounts to a bullshit example.
Also, I worked for an American insurance company for five years. My diagnosis automatically disqualified me from some of their policies. So I suspect the reason American companies claim to cover this drug is because American rules are designed such that people with CF have trouble getting coverage at all. I was an industry insider for five years. I know how they make their money. Spending jillions on a small number of very needy people is not how they line their shareholder's pockets.
Most likely, they won't pay for it in England in part because that would involve actually paying that ridiculously high annual bill because I believe they have some form of national coverage. The American companies may list it as a covered medication, then do everything in their power to not cover any of the mere 1500 Americans with the alleles it is supposed to help. Plus the initial reports were spindoctored to boost company stock. There is a certain amount of hype surrounding this drug. It is generally a bad example to give as some kind of "proof" that Americans have it better.
I also have multiple relatives who have or have had cancer. For brevity's sake, suffice it to say I am not as impressed as you are with the American approach to treating it.
Although Kalydeco has been approved, it is unavailable in the UK to most of the patients who qualify for it as it is undergoing a "pricing assessment".
My argument is two fold: 1) Measure such as "life expectancy" are a poor indicator of the quality of health care one receives. 2) Although the US healthcare system has many problems, it covers many, many drugs, often used to treat serious illnesses such as CF and cancer that aren't covered by countries that have single payer systems.
So I take it you disagree?