52 replies to this topic

[JPD]

Im currently on my (soon to be) ex-wife's coverage.  Then COBRA for 2 years.  Then Ill have to buy insurance.  I own my own small business, so employer coverage is out.  Needless to say, with all this hoo-hah about pre-existing conditions not being covered (yes, I know they cant deny coverage, but they could make the premiums unaffordable and/or bring back lifetime caps).

 

Anyone else just a little freaked today?

[Jan0080]

Hopefully, Senators don't have their heads in their bodily cavity.

We all need to call our elected officials and let them understand what this could do to us.

They should be working on controlling pharmaceutical prices.

Don't panic until there is a bill passed by the Senate.

[AdamJ]

I am certainly worried about it. I hope that the Senate will have more sense, but after this past election nothing surprises me. It is truly a shame that our politicians look at healthcare as something to be negotiated and anything that provides "too many" benefits will not pass muster.  We are replacing something that was inadequate with something even less adequate while medical costs are skyrocketing. I don't see much point in offering insurance if it does not pay for those of us who need it. My guess is that in the coming years there will be lots of folks with CML taking international "vacations" and returning with generic TKIs in tow.  It is probably already cheaper to fly to India and buy a years worth of generic Gleevec than it is to buy it using medicare or many insurance plans.

[Snowwhite]

Feeling very scared right now, for us with this pre-existing condition but for everyone else with health care needs. Our country has gone mad!

[MACELPatient]

Something to keep an eye on. Senate R may scrap House version and write their own.
https://www.bloomber...er-house-action

[IGotCML]

We had a defective patchwork health coverage system before Obamacare, then Obamacare comes along and adds more defects and patches and now we have Trumpcare which will have it's own defects and patches. The one constant are the health insurance companies which incur huge amounts of economic inefficiency and no vlalue to health care cosumers or providers.

 

Health insurance companies are so economically powerful because of tax subsidized employer provided health coverage. This greatly limits consumers' options when choosing health coverage as the employees are not allowed to receive the cash equivalent of their employer's plan to purchase coverage from outside their employer's plan.

 

The only law changes that will help consumers are ones that will reduce the power of health insurance companies. Neither political party is wiling to do this.

[Buzzm1]

Republicans' health bill takes $600 billion out of health care to cut taxes for the rich

 

The American Health Care Act that House Republicans passed today has a lot of provisions that are worth trying to learn about and understand. 

But there's one provision that is far more important than all the rest: It cuts taxes by $600 billion and nonetheless reduces the deficit. 

There are a lot of reasons you might want to cut taxes. But cutting taxes doesn't provide more people with health insurance. Cutting taxes doesn't lower premiums and deductibles for the insured. Cutting taxes doesn't help protect people with preexisting conditions. Cutting taxes doesn't bolster the long-term fiscal viability of Medicare. Cutting taxes doesn't give patients more choice of doctors or insurance plans. Cutting taxes doesn't improve preventive health or boost search for cures. 

Cutting taxes, in short, doesn't do anything to improve the quality of health care in the United States of America. 

And we're not talking about a small amount of money. It works out to approximately $5,000 worth of tax cuts per household. Except most households aren't going to see their taxes cut at all because of which taxes the AHCA cuts.

 

• It eliminates a 3.8 percent tax that applied to capital gains, dividend, and interest income for families with $250,000 or more in income ($125,000 for singles).
• It eliminates a 0.9 percent tax on wage income in excess of $250,000 a year ($200,000 for unmarried people).
• It eliminates taxes on health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers.

Read more: http://bit.ly/2pLutX6

[thatguy]

Stay positive. Everyone has family members with some sort of condition. The politicians aren't immune from this reality. Somehow, some way, enough good people will make whatever work out...Even if this passed in current form, Without the mandates of insurance in place (which still pretty much are anyway) the health industries might not wield as much leverage with exorbitant pricing, if the market simply can't support it. I mean I don't really think these pharmaceutical companies would in worst-case scenario sell their drugs only to the 2 insanely rich people that could subscribe to cash pay subscription at current pricing...they'd have to adjust pricing, no company could even exist with those ethics, I don't think..

If the pre-existing acceptance requirement is repealed, although not desirable, wouldn't medicare or medicaid kick in? Like what did you old timers do prior to O-care?

[chriskuo]

Staying positive implies a level of passivity that is not warranted in this case. The Republicans who supported this bill need to be voted out of office in 2018. How many of us have congressman who voted for this bill?

Previously, people who did not have good insurance and/or could not get affordable insurance often received delayed or inferior health care and depended on charity. Charities and drug companies have paid for or subsidized cancer drugs for people who could not afford them.

15 years ago, a few people were taking Gleevec. Today, the number of CML survivors has been growing at a tremendous pace as newly diagnosed patients join the ranks of patients who are living longer and longer. If cancer patients lose coverage today, charities would be overwhelmed with demand.

This bill does NOTHING to control drug costs. Why can't the government negotiate drug prices as is done in virtually every other country?
Because it is against Republican ideology. It is as simple as that. Does ideology trump a reasonable health care system (pun intended)?

I hope this helps to explain why this bill is a disaster for cancer survivors. Don't get me started on high-risk pools.

LLS has been lobbying against this bill and has been asking for our support with numerous calls to action. If you haven't seen the LLS material, it is a must read.

[r06ue1]

Anyone that cannot afford their medications in the future, hackers of the world have a solution for you.  I will not post the information here but will make it available if the need arises.  

[thatguy]

It's not going to make it through the Senate as is. Passivity no, rational assumptions and wishful thinking maybe. Hoping to see both sides of things and a good solution for all, yes.

Not all republicans are supportive of high drug prices...(cough, cough).

[campanula]

Could not agree with you more, Chrisuko.  And yesterday, immediately after praising the GOP for passing this bill, Trump told the PM of Australia that their health care system was better than ours.  The congressmen who voted for this bill did not even read it, let alone understand it.  We are just pawns in their political life.  Vote them out.

 

"...The importance of this work cannot be overstated, as it has led to some of the most important advancements in cancer care. For example, the discovery of imatinib, a revolutionary cancer drug used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001, was supported with LLS funding, but was also funded in large part by an NCI grant. The underpinnings of this work, which won the 1989 Nobel Prize, grew out of a general understanding of the cellular machinery governing cancer cell growth. Today, nearly 90 percent of patients treated with imatinib in a clinical trial setting are alive five years after diagnosis, compared to the years prior to the approval of imatinib, when less than one in three patients with CML survived five years after diagnosis. This would not have happened without NCI's continual support of this work and underscores that a sustained investment in research is vitally important so tomorrow's new therapies can be achieved." - Louis J. Gennaro, Ph.D., President and CEO of LLS.

[Pin]

What I don't understand about that is that Trump doesn't support universal health care, but says that the Australian system is "better"?

[Buzzm1]

What I don't understand about that is that Trump doesn't support universal health care, but says that the Australian system is "better"?

Political pundit George Will said that Donald Trump's brain and mouth are not connected.

[jamesm]

I was recently laid off and have COBRA which is just a continuation of the same coverage I had. I'm covered for 18 months. Given it's a "qualifying event", I looked at the marketplace health plans and it seems like that's not an option. Every plan I looked at lists Tier 4 meds (Tasigna) as only covering 50%. At a ridiculous $10K a month that the insurance lists for their cost, that would require me to pay $5K a month for the medication. That is no where near an option for me.

 

Let's just say I don't find a job after 18 months and COBRA is no longer an option, what do I do then?

 

I've always wanted to own a business, but it seems like this condition prevents that completely due to the costs. Even worse, it makes it hard for me to find a job given I need a large group policy to spread out the cost. I've had 3 different jobs since my DX and each employer had to raise premiums and get creative at the next open enrollment. I screw it up for everyone. Me working for a small company would be devastating for them.

 

Has anyone else ran into this? Any advice?

 

Thanks.

 

 

[Buzzm1]

Insurance Status Influences Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Survival Outcomes

 

Insurance status at the time of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) diagnosis appears to have an influence on survival outcomes, according to a new study. Those who are uninsured or have Medicaid had significantly worse overall survival than those with Medicare or private insurance.

 

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have ushered in an era of extremely effective CML therapy. "These significant advances are contingent upon access and adherence to effective and prolonged TKI therapy, taken once or twice daily, for an indefinite period of time," wrote study authors led by Andrew M. Brunner, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. "Each of the approved frontline TKIs costs approximately $100,000 per year, a price that may limit access to these highly effective therapies."

 

The researchers used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to analyze whether insurance status might affect outcomes in CML patients. They included 5,784 patients aged 15 years or older, diagnosed with CML between 2007 and 2012; among those, 337 were uninsured, 785 had Medicaid, and 4,662 had either private insurance or Medicare. Among those were 3,626 patients aged 15 to 64 years at the time of diagnosis, 8.9% of whom were uninsured. The results of the analysis were published online ahead of print in Cancer.

 

Over a median follow-up of 32 months, being uninsured or having Medicaid was associated with worse overall survival compared with insured patients (P < .001) among the non-Medicare population (ages 15 to 64 years). The 5-year overall survival rate was 86.6% in those with insurance, compared with 72.7% in uninsured patients and 73.1% of Medicaid patients. In those aged 65 years or older, the 5-year overall survival rate was no different between Medicaid and other forms of insurance.

 

Read more: http://www.cancernet...rvival-outcomes

[thatguy]

Co-pay assistance is typically offered through the manufacturers for those with insurance. That might help tremendously if you have to get a pLan that puts it in tier 4.

[chriskuo]

James,

Did you check the marketplace plans to see what the cap was on total out-of-pocket costs were?
The monthly expense may start out expensive, but with a cap, the total cost to you may not be as bad as you think.
As mentioned, you are likely to qualify for copay assistance as well.

[Buzzm1]

jamesm, I noticed that you were diagnosed in July, 2006 http://community.lls...asigna/?p=16781

Did you ever reach PCRU?

[jamesm]

jamesm, I noticed that you were diagnosed in July, 2006 http://community.lls...asigna/?p=16781

Did you ever reach PCRU?

 

I've been bouncing around on the edge of detection pretty much since being on Tasigna. I usually test once every 3 months and sometimes it's undetectable and sometimes it's barely detectable. Been like this for years.