"So Sept 1 we're changing health insurance companies, and oh by the way . . ."

[franksolich]

No. New drugs are protected by patents for either 17 or 20 years. Otherwise, the incentive to develop drugs, and then go through the long, tortuous and expensive U.S. testing requirements just wouldn't be there. FDA approval takes years and sometimes millions of dollars.

Well, but my thought was that surely most ailments, including the ones allegedly affecting the brain-damaged primitive, are pretty ancient and have been treated by medication for decades.....and hence ancient drugs.

I mean, surely the brain-damaged primitive isn't suffering from some exotic condition that was discovered recently, and hence drugs for its treatment are still brand new.

[Ballygrl]

Well, but my thought was that surely most ailments, including the ones allegedly affecting the brain-damaged primitive, are pretty ancient and have been treated by medication for decades.....and hence ancient drugs.

I mean, surely the brain-damaged primitive isn't suffering from some exotic condition that was discovered recently, and hence drugs for its treatment are still brand new.

If he had or has a brain tumor he could be on meds like Avastin or Temodar and I don't think they're available in generic.

[jtyangel]

Well, but my thought was that surely most ailments, including the ones allegedly affecting the brain-damaged primitive, are pretty ancient and have been treated by medication for decades.....and hence ancient drugs.

I mean, surely the brain-damaged primitive isn't suffering from some exotic condition that was discovered recently, and hence drugs for its treatment are still brand new.

Frank, it depends on what one's body will tolerate as well. Some people just can't tolerate the chemical makeup of one medication versus another and the one they can tolerate may not have a generic yet. Also there may be one type of drug versus another used to treat the same disorder--say a stimulant versus a non stimulant to treat ADD. Most stimulants have a generic to them however individuals with underlying tic disorders like Tourette's can not take them as they aggrevate or even reveal and exacerbate tourettes. I believe the non stimulants don't as frequently have generic versions so they will be more costly but they would be the medication that would have to be used for an individual that has tourettes comorbidly. unfortunately, it's a situation where there is a question of if there are other conditions or medications that this one medication can interact with. ON the rare occasion I've needed medicine, I take generic whenever I can. There was a brief spell when dealing with a skin disorder that is was only responsive to more recent medication. There was no generic version of this medication. Truly sucked, but that's what worked.

[franksolich]

New drugs have a patent of I think 20 years, oooops, GOBUCKS just said that, there's a lot that goes into research and development so that's why generic comes out after all those years.

Well, I know that part, madam; where it takes x many of years to recover all the research and development costs of a new product.....and so one's eminently entitled to have an exclusive patent, charging as much as one wishes, for so many years, until those initial costs are recovered.

Now, I don't pay any more attention to the pharmacy business as I do to the infant formula business or the women's purse business, because I don't have to use drugs.  It's alien territory to me.

But a lot of people around here use drugs, and when I inquire, they're usually always generics--and that's for everything from arthritis to blood pressure to women problems to diabetes to &c., &c., &c.

It's rare that one mentions one's taking a name-brand drug.

I figure this is because most ailments suffered by most people were discovered decades ago, and drug treatments developed decades ago, far beyond that 20-or-so years of a patent.

And surely the brain-damaged primitive isn't one of these "special cases"--as much as he'd like to be, it being the way primitives are--where some new and innovative drug was invented, and it's still name-brand only.

[MrsSmith]

frank makes a good point...while the drugs DainBramaged takes may not be out in generic, yet, it's quite possible that there are generics that could do the job.  Doctors don't always check, many assume that people with insurance don't care...mostly because most people with insurance drug coverage really don't care!  I have frequently mentioned to doctors that my insurance ONLY covers generics, and it's very, very seldom they can't provide something that works.  If I were Dain, I'd call my doctor (or explain at my next visit), and see if there are generics that are reasonable substitutes. 

[franksolich]

frank makes a good point...while the drugs DainBramaged takes may not be out in generic, yet, it's quite possible that there are generics that could do the job.  Doctors don't always check, many assume that people with insurance don't care...mostly because most people with insurance drug coverage really don't care!  I have frequently mentioned to doctors that my insurance ONLY covers generics, and it's very, very seldom they can't provide something that works.  If I were Dain, I'd call my doctor (or explain at my next visit), and see if there are generics that are reasonable substitutes.

There seems to be two sorts of attitudes at play here.

One of them is that even decent and civilized people tend to just take the recommendations of a physician without asking questions; insurance is going to pay for it anyway.

The other is that primitives get all agog and excited about "new" drugs, and being primitives, they want to be sure to cost the taxpayers as much as possible.  It makes a primitive feel "special," to be a burden on others, be it the taxpayers (most usually) or the other insurance policyholders.

As I've mentioned, I don't do drugs.  There's been a few times in my adult life where something's been suggested, in which case I inquired about non-pharmaceutical alternatives, and was given information about all that.  Drugs have their uses, but generally they need taken with more care and caution than most seem to do, and if a non-pharmaceutical alternative is available, one should go that route.

I haven't avoided them entirely; the past 30 years, there's been four instances of 10- and 30-day short-term prescriptions, such as that needed when my ulcer broke open two years ago.  But those were sporadic one-time short-term deals, not constant and perpetual pharmaceutical maintenance.

Penicillin's the only drug I've ever taken without doubts.

Now, I'm aware that being single, no dependents, no particularly onerous responsibilities, no oppressive stresses that afflict hearing people, I have rather more time and leisure to use permanent fixes rather than quick fixes, and so I don't fault decent and civilized people who take pills for blood pressure rather than losing weight, for example.  They have worries, concerns, in life that I don't.

But I really wish people were more cautious about the matter.

The other thing I suspect without really knowing is that probably the older a drug is (and still on the market), the safer it is, because it's been around a long time, time enough for long-term effects to be observed.  I'd be really leery about taking a "new" drug if an older one that does the same thing is available.

[zeitgeist]

two brain surgerys and two other surgeries????

i support death panels

Does this sound a bit like the medical history of Slo JO'biden to anyone else?

[MrsSmith]

There seems to be two sorts of attitudes at play here.

One of them is that even decent and civilized people tend to just take the recommendations of a physician without asking questions; insurance is going to pay for it anyway.

The other is that primitives get all agog and excited about "new" drugs, and being primitives, they want to be sure to cost the taxpayers as much as possible.  It makes a primitive feel "special," to be a burden on others, be it the taxpayers (most usually) or the other insurance policyholders.

As I've mentioned, I don't do drugs.  There's been a few times in my adult life where something's been suggested, in which case I inquired about non-pharmaceutical alternatives, and was given information about all that.  Drugs have their uses, but generally they need taken with more care and caution than most seem to do, and if a non-pharmaceutical alternative is available, one should go that route.

I haven't avoided them entirely; the past 30 years, there's been four instances of 10- and 30-day short-term prescriptions, such as that needed when my ulcer broke open two years ago.  But those were sporadic one-time short-term deals, not constant and perpetual pharmaceutical maintenance.

Penicillin's the only drug I've ever taken without doubts.

Now, I'm aware that being single, no dependents, no particularly onerous responsibilities, no oppressive stresses that afflict hearing people, I have rather more time and leisure to use permanent fixes rather than quick fixes, and so I don't fault decent and civilized people who take pills for blood pressure rather than losing weight, for example.  They have worries, concerns, in life that I don't.

But I really wish people were more cautious about the matter.

The other thing I suspect without really knowing is that probably the older a drug is (and still on the market), the safer it is, because it's been around a long time, time enough for long-term effects to be observed.  I'd be really leery about taking a "new" drug if an older one that does the same thing is available.

A few years before my grandmother died, she went through a period of confusion severe enough that we suspected one of her strokes - (she had a lot of strokes in her last decade) - had actually caused her to lose portions of her mind.  My mother, thankfully, insisted on taking her to a new doctor about that time.  This doctor looked at the full list of drugs she was on and took away most of them, replaced a couple with different things...and a few days later, my grandmother was herself again.

There are definitely conditions that require medication, but it does seem that doctors often tend to over-medicate, probably in a CYOA attitude (better to over-test and over-medicate than to be seen as doing "too little.")

[zeitgeist]

A few years before my grandmother died, she went through a period of confusion severe enough that we suspected one of her strokes - (she had a lot of strokes in her last decade) - had actually caused her to lose portions of her mind.  My mother, thankfully, insisted on taking her to a new doctor about that time.  This doctor looked at the full list of drugs she was on and took away most of them, replaced a couple with different things...and a few days later, my grandmother was herself again.

There are definitely conditions that require medication, but it does seem that doctors often tend to over-medicate, probably in a CYOA attitude (better to over-test and over-medicate than to be seen as doing "too little.")

Great Aunt had similar situation.  Mom had kept an eye on her for years and noticed she seemed to be slipping.  She had a couple doctors who were unaware of each other.  Finally mom, the pharmacist, and the doctors all began going, HUM, what is wrong with this picture.  Did an inventory of all the stuff she was taking and major changes were made once they all became aware of all the stuff she was taking.  She became her old self again shortly there after and lived to over 100.