Putting for-profit companies in charge of health-care decisions seems like not a bright idea, tbh.https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1136244303192346626 …
-
-
Sure, but the implication of your tweet is that a not-for-profit entity would have made a different decision about whether to invest in verifying if Enbrel really reduces the risk of Alzheimer's. (Otherwise, why would this story illustrate the dangers of for-profit healthcare?)
-
But the National Health Service's model for valuing pharmaceuticals, for instance, would lead to less investment in new drugs, and things like trials for drugs like Enbrel, because they use a relatively low QALY measure.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Cost benefit decisions are fundamentally factual and so should be governed by science. We have exactly this problem in the UK whenever the National Institute for Clinical Excellence decides not to fund a cancer treatment with a big newspaper fanbase.
-
But the value attached to a QALY - which determines the "benefit" part of "cost benefit decisions" - is inherently a political/social, rather than factual, decision.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
We should vote on what cereal you eat every morning, too. ... Or just let people choose for themselves in a free, not coercive market.
-
...And...how does concentrating more power in central government lead to less rent seeking? Instead of private companies rent seeking, you simply absorb the rent seekers and rent seeking behavior into the government itself.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.