Technology exists that can make insulin-dependent diabetics feel wonderful--but Americans can't have

[blondeatlast]

it--and yep, you guessed why (it isn't profitable).

Note: When Medtronic purchased Minimed in 2001, I knew that any real progress in treatment was going to be stymied. Customer service is still pretty good, but nothing near what it was when it was just a few hundred really dedicated US employees. I've been on a pump since 1998 and it's made a world of difference, but I've known some diabetics who maintained tight control who have had pancreas transplants and say the difference is like night and day. It's painful to know that this is yet another promise out of reach...

What if there were a technology that could make people with type 1 diabetes feel absolutely wonderful, completely healthy, better than they ever realized was possible? And what if it were about to disappear? Well, there is such a technology, and it is in serious jeopardy. It's called the implantable insulin pump, currently made by Medtronic. This is the story of four people who have been using this device for 20 years, and their desperate crusade to keep it from disappearing forever.

(snip)

Greg Peterson says, "Before I received my first implantable pump in 1992, I was the poster child for diabetes care. My control was superb, and I thought I was doing quite well. But the day after I had my implantable pump installed, it was as if I were a new person. It absolutely changed my life. As I said to a friend of mine, ‘Holy Toledo, I feel incredibly good. Is this what normal is?' The difference is not describable to a person who hasn't experienced it, unfortunately, but all of us will tell you this: It's a phenomenal difference."

(snip)

All these accumulated arguments support our efforts in France, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands to keep this therapy available for our patients who cannot be safely treated by subcutaneous insulin. Our national health insurance systems reimburse this therapy because it dramatically reduces the time spent in the hospital by these difficult cases.

Due to the multiple benefits in terms of glucose control and quality of life offered by this technology, we cannot understand how it might be endangered. Instead, it should be considered a reference for the treatment of diabetes by insulin. It is even more incredible to realize that these implantable devices are made in the US but are not approved there to treat diabetes. Consequently, the American patients who recognize its benefits must come to us several times per year at their own expense to get them! It is hard to believe that this therapy would not be profitable to its manufacturer if promoted on a large scale in America. Let's hope the rationale will ultimately prevail for a better, "closer to normal" life for many diabetic patients. We in Europe will never, never give in!
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2011/04/17/7124/a-miracle-technology-for-type-1s-can-it-be-saved-/

Medtronic's response:
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2011/05/05/7154/medtronic-responds-to-a-miracle-technology-for-type-1s-can-it-be-saved/

[Liberal Veteran]

1. But. But. But. We have the best health care in the world!

Every single time someone drops that turd of meme about how great the US health care is I have an urge to slap them so hard they'll need the best the health care in the world.

[Walk away]

2. My health insurance wouldn't cover it anyway.

Still it would be great for people who can afford it.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. If we had a national health insurance system, that would not even be a consideraton.

"All these accumulated arguments support our efforts in France, Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands to keep this therapy available for our patients who cannot be safely treated by subcutaneous insulin. Our national health insurance systems reimburse this therapy because it dramatically reduces the time spent in the hospital by these difficult cases. "

[blondeatlast]

4. The entire reason it is still being produced in Europe is the nationalized health

care system (see the bold type above).

If we had such a plan, it woudn't be much of an issue.

[Walk away]

5. Believe me....I consider every vote for a republican a nail in my coffin.

I am a hard working tax payer who provides my own health insurance at a high premium. I had to walk out of Walgreen's without test strips today. I had reached my insurance limit and I hadn't brought enough money with me ($160 for a one month supply) The last time this happened my doctor didn't believe an insurance company didn't cover all diabetic drugs. Now he gives me vials of insulin every time I see him.

[jbnow]

6. It seems to me that for profit insurance would be stupid

to not encourage something that makes such a difference.

Even if the initial cost is considerable more right now diabetes complications is a huge expense. Every body system is affected
So even if they don't give a crap if people 'feel' better
What about giving a crap for their own long range financial profit?
It doesn't make any sense

And what about our government with the expense of Medicare, how much could they save if diabetics were so much healthier?

This isn't making sense to me but I admit I haven't read more about it

[Juche]

7. I think the assumption is that the patients will be on a different plan by then

I'm not sure. But with so much job mobility and medicare at 65, I am guessing insurance companies assume that even if saving $1 now costs $10 down the road, by the time that $10 comes up you will be on a different insurance carrier.

That is a guess.

[JoeyT]

8. They're not concerned with long range anything.

Long range profits don't get you a bonus that will buy a new yacht, jacking up short term profits does. Then you bail before the obvious results of all your stupid decisions catch up with the company.

They're probably hoping most of the patients will die before they use that much in the long term.

[underseasurveyor]

15. And if they don't die...

Insurance company will just delay and deny until they do die.

Profits insured!

Bastards!

[Lucian]

9. I'm sure there's many treatments drug companies have...

but won't give us because it's not "profitable."

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a cure for cancer also.

For-Profit insurance companies and pharmaceuticals are the worst things ever.

[blondeatlast]

10. While I sincerely doubt they are "holding back" a cure for cancer; I used to

pooh-pooh the idea that the medical industry would hold back on a promising treatment for diabetes. Now I can almost believe it.

[WatsonT]

11. It sounds like the FDA just hasn't approved it yet here

Not that it was banned for lack of a profit-margin (for that matter it seems like it would be extremely profitable).

[blondeatlast]

12. They aren't pursuing it for FDA testing--they've abandoned it. nt

[WatsonT]

13. Possibly because it is extremely expensive to get anything approved by the FDA

[blondeatlast]

14. That's a piss-poor excuse, IMHO, when it has obviousl;y worked very well

in Europe and the technology is from the US.

[Lance_Boyle]

16. Happens all the time, especially in Nephrology. FDA is crooked.

FDA assembles review committees (drug and device) comprised of people who take money from companies with already-approved would-be-competing products on the market and lets them shitcan US-made tech that has been approved and used in the EU for the better part of a decade. See Nephros, Inc. and hemodiafiltration for more on this.

[WatsonT]

17. Ok, so what's the solution?

If you can't sell a drug here without FDA approval and the FDA won't approve it for a reasonable price, who is to blame for it not being sold here?

Like saying: you can make and sell cars here but each one will have to be licensed and tested by the company to the tune of 100,000 per unit.

And then getting pissed off that those evil companies won't make or sell cars here.