In an article found in the New York Times entitled, "U.S Cost-Saving Policy Forces New Kidney Transplant" overall discusses that many of the new U.S outreaches to save money, are not saving us anything at all. It is a current battle within the health-care debate as to whether or not funding should be cut off from patients after 3 years of having all expenses and medicine covered. This particular article discusses both sides but also addresses its bias towards this being a ridiculous idea. It seems almost ridiculous to pay for someones transplant, treatment, and medicine for three years and then completely cut them off, expecting them to take over the outrages prices, and HOPEFULLY survive if they are unable to. One direct case this article mentions involves a person who was cut off from the medicine and benefits we provided for the last year, and ultimately became so sick again that there was a need for yet another kidney transplant which would then be expected to cover. In the end, it is obvious, that actually cost us way more money than we could have ever expected, thus showing this new plan could ultimately cost us more than the original. The medicine these patients take after going through a transplant are those which lead them to a successful recovery. With that said, these drugs are needed for much more than three years. It is like giving these patients a false sense of hope. The article explains that the medication provided for them eases the pain and increases the rate of recovery but then withdrawing them after an extended period of time may just put them back at the beginning. This may not be true of all patients, but for many of them, the medication is needed for a lifetime. Therefore, in cutting them off from funding we could potentially have hundreds of people back in square one needing yet another transplant. Overall, the U.S is in such a frenzy trying to save all the money possible, but because we are in such a hurry to do so, many of the plans are not well though out. This one proves that to be true. As much as we need money, we still need a well-run and successful government. Children, women, men, elders, they are all dying left and right today. The lists for transplants are years long and the care being provided for them is not good enough. Something has to be done to better ensure a recovery or even better, a lifetime, for these people. Our society is letting the importance of health-care go, and because of it, its losing its people.
"Cost-Efficient" Policy
I read this article and responded to it for my letter to the editor assignment and I have chosen the topic for my policy paper. Obviously I am very interested in the idea that anti-rejection drugs are only offered to transplant patients for up to 3 years. Initially I strongly believed that a 3-year limit on anti-rejection drugs was “ridiculous” (as you put it) and inefficient cost-wise. I was angered by the fact that doctors seem to have no say in healthcare policies, because (I figured) if doctors had any say, government administrators would know that long-term use of anti-rejections drugs is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of a new organ. Now I’m slowly starting to realize that it’s not an issue of whether or not doctors are being incorporated into healthcare policy-making process. Most likely, Medicare/Medicaid administrators know that anti-rejection drugs are necessary and the government has decided that it doesn’t have the funds to pay for the drugs for every transplant patient. So what the question comes down to then, is where the government should be allocating its funds. Unfortunately, there is such a wide array of medical issues, necessary surgeries, medicines, etc. that the government can not pay for it all. It is hard to know whether the government would be better off paying for drugs for the rest of every transplant patient's life or if the government could save funds by paying for the maintenance of failing organs (dialysis, new transplant operations, etc). But we definitely know that if the government paid for unlimited amounts of anti-rejection drugs, the transplant patients would all be better off. Maybe they would even be able to get well and work to get themselves off medicare so that they could pay for their own anti-rejection mediations. Who knows?
ReplyDelete