Looks like Big Pharma is about to really cash in on both. I, for one, have been taking it for granted that vaccines are free as was my Paxlovid.

Prices are about to be imposed, though, and HIGH ones.

If/Since Covid hangs around indefinitely (and mutating, thus needing ever new vaccines) that will basically mean eventually killing off all low-income seniors.

This is outrageous and as the numbers will play out demographically, will illustrate a new extreme in racism in medical care (already Blacks and Hispanics are less vaccinated, regardless of their preferences).

Of course, for the anti-vaxers it may not make much difference, but maybe there will be a split even in that camp between the rich and the poor as the statistics hit home (i.e., if more elders in well situated anti-vax families start dying in greater numbers, it may prompt a change of approach.)


However, this upcoming "sticker shock" will hit all seniors and immunosuppressed because increasing numbers of younger adults who would otherwise get vaccinated will decide not to, on economic grounds.

That will mean vulnerable citizens will be that much more at risk because of greater exposure to the unvaccinated around them.

There have been cheerier figures posted of numbers of population vaccinated, but mightn't we have to start counting all over again, when mutant variants predominate - ones not responsive to the original vaccines?

How the holy heck did this get put through without more fanfare and outrage?

Hit is about to fit the Shan for Covid medical management

Already doing a strong burn realizing that this is bound to only affect Americans as the same treatments overseas will (as usual) cost only a fraction of what we're expected to pay!

Not only will developed countries be prepared to negotiate much lower prices than here, but they are apt to subsidize them out of the common sense goal to limit COVID spread and deaths.

quote:

Originally posted by Amanda:

If/Since Covid hangs around indefinitely (and mutating, thus needing ever new vaccines) that will basically mean eventually killing off all low-income seniors.

…

Hit is about to fit the Shan for Covid medical management

The article says the low-income folks have the least to worry about:

quote:

One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.

Yes, Ax, it's true that Medicaid recipients will get the vaccines free but do you realize that to qualify for Medicaid, applicants can have not a penny more than $2000? I knew a single mother with no blood relatives, trying to care for a child severely afflicted with ADHD, who literally hid her (still very low) savings in her freezer for protection in case she was audited (and inspected).

That was in order to be qualify for Medicaid sponsored special education care for him.

As an aside, children deemed ultra severely disturbed also qualified then for additional payments whether or not they were on Medicaid. Tempted, many unscrupulous parents (ones who knew how to game the system) deliberately abused basically normal children in order to receive those government bennies.

Many such well-intended programs designed to help the needy have been abused (here, also harmed children). Perhaps as a reaction, situations now arise like this one with Paxlovid. Soon many older Covid patients (elders most in need of this lifesaving drug) will become unable to afford it. In a peculiar irony, Medicare beneficiaries, those who most need it*, will soon have to pay out of pocket at what sounds to become $500+/dose - or do without. (No, not including those Medicaid eligible).

Population studies show that such costs result in many patients foregoing needed treatment. Even before insulin's price was jacked up, I knew a lovely couple where the wife tried to manage her diabetes by halving the dosage.

They should have described Medicaid beneficiaries as 'severely impoverished' rather than merely "poor". There are millions of people for whom the new prices will be a severe hardship - people who aren't in Medicaid but who nevertheless count their pennies.

*Palovid can't even be prescribed to non-senior Covid patients - it doesn't even seem to help them, so this is squarely aimed at seniors.

quote:

The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to KHN, Pfizer declined to share the planned price.

The government will also stop paying for the company’s covid vaccine next year — those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.

I guess those discounted prices are for Medicaid patients.

How stupid as well as lacking in compassion to put the profit of the pharmaceutical companies so far ahead of the collective good - here meaning the species, actually. Another instance of how corporations take advantage of their power in a crisis to rake in more profits - for example, in our inflationary crisis, how they've raised prices well beyond an amount justifiable by their increase in costs.

Here they are taking advantage of our dependence on their products in determining life and death.
That's really the scariest because without governmental oversight (and rules) they could hold us all to ransom using any vitally needed medication. It's not like "orphan drugs" which though lifesaving only benefit a small number - these products affect the whole population. Of course, for as far as I remember, they've held the US population's feet to the fire charging us whatever they please as they can since we are absent the power of collective bargaining which countries overseas can wield to protect their citizens.

Why isn't our government protecting us? They only offer costs reflecting their true expenses in the one area that benefits them - the pricing of Medicaid drugs for which they are responsible.

Here however, uniquely, they aren't merely gouging consumers but the population at large (and even those overseas) because they're dealing with the control of a contagious illness.

For a long time, WHO has ranked the US even below some third world countries in quality of medical care - and that despite showing we have the highest per capital costs. When Trump trumpets "America First" he clearly only means Profit First. You don't have to live in a "nanny state" to be entitled to fair pricing of products determining who lives and who dies.

This ignorant move takes the cake, though. Charging for vaccines and demanding immense (to most affected) prices for Paxlovid, will not only penalize the elderly, but it will also result in spreading Covid.

Details regarding the feds’ contract with Pfizer as it was previously negotiated. Those courses of Paxlovid are what is being given away currently to anyone, not just Medicaid patients.

https://www.npr.org/sections/h...d-has-some-surprises

quote:

Originally posted by wtg:
Details regarding the feds’ contract with Pfizer as it was previously negotiated. Those courses of Paxlovid are what is being given away currently to anyone, not just Medicaid patients.

https://www.npr.org/sections/h...d-has-some-surprises

I did my best but this document is 48 pages long, and I couldn't find any clear message about cost determination originally and over time?

Is there any way wtg you could please highlight pages to focus on to understand salient points about the contract?

I was responding to your statement “I guess those discounted prices are for Medicaid patients”. I don’t think that’s the case.

The article is from February 2022 and it summarizes the important points of the contract that was first negotiated with Pfizer and that is in place now. I did not drill down further and have not gone thru the 48 pages of actual contract. I relied on NPR to pull out the important points.

We’re running out of those doses that the US govt has been giving away to everyone free; they paid $530 per course. . Once that stockpile runs out it’s a whole new ballgame and new pricing. It’s not known yet what Pfizer might be charging moving forward. As you’ve noted, we’ll be paying for it ourselves and it may be a hefty price tag.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

My best understanding (much extrapolated) is that the vaccine(s?) (and treatments) were first developed with major infusions of support from such as Bill Gates and the government, given free to all eligible according to rules in effect as they evolved.

That it was the same with antivirals and other counter-measures, and that there remain many vials from the original store (here of Paxlovid) which are being given away free until the end of this year - yes, to everyone qualifying).

But that (simplifying) companies (Pfizer, in the case of Paxlovid) are going to begin commercializing their products making a significant profit after this change occurs. The government purchased from them 20 MM courses of Paxlovid at the heavily discounted price of ~ $530/per course negotiated through bulk purchasing.

Pfizer touted (rather ominously IMO) that this price was a great bargain, but that once it is priced for public distribution, the price will be much higher (amount unannounced).

I see no indication that apart from Medicaid beneficiaries, there will be any controls placed on this or other COVID treatment sold to the general pubic. (Price caps are what I'd like to see, probably determined through detailed study of R&D costs (and cost sources). Without knowing how much was contributed to them (likewise, other products) it's impossible to tell what a reasonable profit margin is for it. If necessary, a government subsidy could make this possible. (Likewise, and more stringently, for vaccines which are all the more in the interests of the whole country - and for that matter, more widely.).

Since (horrifyingly and mystifyingly) there seems to be an agreement that Medicare will not share the costs for beneficiaries, it means that apart from Medicaid beneficiaries, those in the demographic most affected will have to pay full fee.

Thence I arrived at my previous complaints. Repeating, that this will penalize the elderly the most (apart from Medicaid recipients).
If I've missed something about how things will be once these products are commercialized, I sure missed it. Maybe above Medicaid level of poverty, there will be some subsidies for those who qualify as is usually the case with expensive medications. Those requirements, though, are usually very stringent and IMO very unfair to lower-middle income people. They will just die, at least in higher numbers. It's easy to forget that a great many people are just scraping by, especially now that the economy is still slipping without inflation under control.

One crucial reason for expecting discounting is how many billions of $ (government and other) were infused into all this R&D. That includes the failed efforts.

Maybe the Paxlovid rules are a function of its only being approved on an emergency basis (now lifted?) which somehow put Pfizer at greater risk economically. As for the other treatments and ever new and tweaked vaccines, I can't see any justification for not offering them free for everyone who qualifies.

That is especially so for the most vulnerable (as in the beginning, when vaccines and boosters were doled out according to "need tiers".)

I repeat my plea to wtg for clarification at least on the Paxlovid issue, which I couldn't wade through!

Pfizer didn’t t take any money fro Operation Warp Speed.

We don’t seem to be connecting on the Paxlovid thing. My previous post was my best attempt at clarification.

It’s late here and I’m on my iPad. Any further responses will have to wait!

I know!

I hate to say this (especially because I'm affected) but from a cold-blooded Qaly-based computation, having the mid-lower income seniors all gradually die off would probably greatly benefit the economy.

It would also do much to resolve the blood curdling problem (so much in the news) of what to do with the elderly who outlive their funds for long-term care especially considering the crisis already evident, of inadequate care and insufficient care-givers.

I'm sure a great many younger people (OK, Boomers) would enthusiastically second such a policy! Or if not exactly "policy", perhaps a semi-Darwinian outcome of the pandemic.
(One no one would care to fight.)