Re: Niacin and cholesterol

"As you are surely aware, your Pravachol costs much more than $0.11 per
day.
Your employer and/or insurer are subsidizing the true costs (and people
wonder why their health insurance costs keep going up).

As a famous economist once said, "There's no such thing as a Free Lunch"."

Insurance, when correctly done, is a bet that the sum of the customer's
claims will not exceed what they charge. This is not a subsity but a
pooling of risk. For each claim there are x people without claims. An
employer may pick up the customer's side of the bet,ie. that their claims
will exceed what they pay to be in the pool, or as is now so common the
cost of the bet is split between the two. All do subsidise poor folk who
can not afford to enter the betting pool.

"listener" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

alexs <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

<an open letter to the Wall Street Journal>

Letters Editor,
The Wall Street Journal

26 October, 2004

Dear Editor:

I should like to turn Dr. Kross' argument (Letters to the Editor, 26
Oct) back on himself, in that recommendations like his also contribute
to rising health-care costs. His notion that statin drugs are a
"cheap" way to lower one's LDLs is fine for keeping certain profits
high, but is not so good for the consumer.

On the approval of an open-minded MD, I started taking 1500 mg/day of
plain, cheap nicotinic acid, a.k.a. niacin or vitamin B3. Ninety days
later, I had lowered my total cholesterol to 172 from 244, and my LDL
cholesterol to 84 from 178, all for about 15 cents a day. Those levels
are actually a bit low, and have since backed off the niacin to 1000
mg/day.

Instead of inspiring terror in pharmaceutical companies and orthodox
medicine, I would suggest that such success stories as mine be taken
as a strong hint to rethink market strategies and look for profit
streams elsewhere. The groundswell of well-informed patients and
nutritional medicine's coming of age are going to shut down certain
market segments whether the current players like it or not.

<signed, etc...>

NB comparison: based on survey of Canadian-pharmacy and mail-order
vitamin suppliers:

daily dose of Lipitor: $1.40-2.00 per day, depending on strength, say
10-40 mg/day

daily dose of nicotinic acid: $0.11-0.16 per day, 1000-1500 mg/day

<do the math, folks. Apologise for the crossposts>

On my health care plan my statin, Pravachol, cost me $0.11 per day.

OK. I did the math. Now what?

As you are surely aware, your Pravachol costs much more than $0.11 per day.
Your employer and/or insurer are subsidizing the true costs (and people
wonder why their health insurance costs keep going up).

As a famous economist once said, "There's no such thing as a Free Lunch".

GG

Quoted message said:

"As you are surely aware, your Pravachol costs much more than $0.11

per

Quoted message said:

day.
Your employer and/or insurer are subsidizing the true costs (and

people

Quoted message said:

wonder why their health insurance costs keep going up).

As a famous economist once said, "There's no such thing as a Free

Lunch"."

Quoted message said:

Insurance, when correctly done, is a bet that the sum of the

customer's

Quoted message said:

claims will not exceed what they charge. This is not a subsity but a
pooling of risk. For each claim there are x people without claims.

An

Quoted message said:

employer may pick up the customer's side of the bet,ie. that their

claims

Quoted message said:

will exceed what they pay to be in the pool, or as is now so common

the

Quoted message said:

cost of the bet is split between the two. All do subsidise poor folk

who

Quoted message said:

can not afford to enter the betting pool.

big box pharmacy: no coverage.

nicotinic acid...500/3.....one month.....$ 5.37

pravastatin......20mg......one month.....$40.91 generic

rosuvastatin.....20mg......one month.....$63.25

atorvastatin.....20mg......one month.....$75.45
simvastatin......20mg......one month.....$48.76

Zee

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"As you are surely aware, your Pravachol costs much more than $0.11 per
day.
Your employer and/or insurer are subsidizing the true costs (and people
wonder why their health insurance costs keep going up).

As a famous economist once said, "There's no such thing as a Free Lunch"."

Insurance, when correctly done, is a bet that the sum of the customer's
claims will not exceed what they charge. This is not a subsity but a
pooling of risk. For each claim there are x people without claims. An
employer may pick up the customer's side of the bet,ie. that their claims
will exceed what they pay to be in the pool, or as is now so common the
cost of the bet is split between the two. All do subsidise poor folk who
can not afford to enter the betting pool.

The problem is, we've become a nation of pill-poppers. The overall rate of
prescriptions is going up every year. This means the insurance companies
are having to pay more and more, thus forcing them to increase their rates.
Unfortunately, with the current plan, there is no incentive for folks to
choose less expensive options for health care...if the $120/month Nexium
"costs" me the same $10 co-pay as the $20/month Prilosec, why would I choose
the less expensive one?

GG

In article <[email hidden]>,

GaryG' garyg@shasta_SPAMBEGONE_software.com said:

The overall rate of
prescriptions is going up every year. This means the insurance companies
are having to pay more and more, thus forcing them to increase their rates.
Unfortunately, with the current plan, there is no incentive for folks to
choose less expensive options for health care...if the $120/month Nexium
"costs" me the same $10 co-pay as the $20/month Prilosec, why would I choose
the less expensive one?

Well you answered your own question in the first part of your comment.
The costs to insurance companies keep going up. They don't want to lose
out on any profit. They raise rates to maintain income. In a year or two
you or your employer pay higher premiums because folks think they're
getting something for next to nothing. There is incentive, it's just not
well recognized.

--
"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

On 26 Oct 2004 23:26:07 GMT, [email hidden] posted:

Quoted message said:

"As you are surely aware, your Pravachol costs much more than $0.11 per
day.
Your employer and/or insurer are subsidizing the true costs (and people
wonder why their health insurance costs keep going up).

As a famous economist once said, "There's no such thing as a Free Lunch"."

Insurance, when correctly done, is a bet that the sum of the customer's
claims will not exceed what they charge. This is not a subsity but a
pooling of risk. For each claim there are x people without claims. An
employer may pick up the customer's side of the bet,ie. that their claims
will exceed what they pay to be in the pool, or as is now so common the
cost of the bet is split between the two. All do subsidise poor folk who
can not afford to enter the betting pool.

Thanks Mark. That's a good way of looking at it, and justifies why I
don't like insurance companies. They are just gamblers! :-)

I take very good care of my property and have little cause to worry
about it, so I refuse to pay the inflated premiums to cover folk who
wander about in a daze leaving their property vulnerable to all sorts
of risks. I know a professional "insurer" who had everything covered
to the hilt and whenever he needed a newer and advanced model of
something, he arranged a fire/accident/burglary and has profited
handsomely from his many insurance escapades. He had a broker who
chased around to find cover for him from the dwindling pool of
companies who would look at him , until the broker ran out of options
and dumped him. He now goes uninsured :-) No thanks!

The answer using your example would be: to split the savings of using
generic drugs with the consumer and ultimate payer. If Nexium cost
insurance $120/month less 10 bucks that is $110 a month for the company to
pay. Prilosec cost insurance $20/ month less 10 bucks or only ten dollars a
month. If everyone uses Prilosec instead of Nexium will the insurance
companies cut their prices because their expenses are less? Not likely Why
not give the patient that takes Prilosec a cash rebate of fifty dollars each
month for taking the inexpensive drug? Its no crazier than paying for
Nexium if Prilosec works just as well.

You might ban advertising of brand name medications as they are detrimental
to the nations' health due to excessive cost. How many so-called wonder
drugs are only wonderful because of the huge sums spent in advertising them
to consumers and the gullible medical profession. .

Quoted message said:

The problem is, we've become a nation of pill-poppers. The overall rate

of

Quoted message said:

prescriptions is going up every year. This means the insurance companies
are having to pay more and more, thus forcing them to increase their

rates.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, with the current plan, there is no incentive for folks to
choose less expensive options for health care...if the $120/month Nexium
"costs" me the same $10 co-pay as the $20/month Prilosec, why would I

choose

Quoted message said:

the less expensive one?

GG

All pharmacy computer programs should tell the patient the real retail cash
price of the prescription that they purchase. Most often only the patient's
co-pay Rx price is printed on his receipt. No wonder they think a three
hundred dollar Rx only costs twenty dollars! But everyone knows that a Rolex
or a BMW cost a lot of money.

"Pumbaa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All pharmacy computer programs should tell the patient the real retail

cash

Quoted message said:

price of the prescription that they purchase. Most often only the

patient's

Quoted message said:

co-pay Rx price is printed on his receipt. No wonder they think a three
hundred dollar Rx only costs twenty dollars! But everyone knows that a

Rolex

Quoted message said:

or a BMW cost a lot of money.

Some how when government provides it for "free" that way of looking at it is
lost.

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:09:18 -0500, "Pumbaa"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

All pharmacy computer programs should tell the patient the real retail cash
price of the prescription that they purchase. Most often only the patient's
co-pay Rx price is printed on his receipt. No wonder they think a three
hundred dollar Rx only costs twenty dollars! But everyone knows that a Rolex
or a BMW cost a lot of money.

Every box of med prescribed here has the full price on the
pharmacict's label

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:14:44 -0700, "Robert" <[email hidden]>
posted:

Quoted message said:

"Pumbaa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All pharmacy computer programs should tell the patient the real retail

cash

Quoted message said:

price of the prescription that they purchase. Most often only the

patient's

Quoted message said:

co-pay Rx price is printed on his receipt. No wonder they think a three
hundred dollar Rx only costs twenty dollars! But everyone knows that a

Rolex

Quoted message said:

or a BMW cost a lot of money.

Some how when government provides it for "free" that way of looking at it is
lost.

Agree, which is why they have the full price printed on every drug
prescribed in Australia.