It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Eli Lilly Disses Blockbusters, Plugs Personalized Medicine: Medicaid Chokes

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Blockbuster drugs don't work. It's no secret. Different patients have different bio-chemical-immunological make-up, needs, and responses - and the same patient will have different needs at different times. So blockbuster "side-effects" and "complications" are not just predictable, they're guaranteed. A major drug company, Eli Lilly, recently owned up and outlined a new drug development strategy, promising "the right dose of the right drug to the right patient at the right time." BUT - Healthcare costs are shooting sky high because so-called "diseases of aging" are epidemic, still spreading, and striking more, and younger, people each decade. So to cut costs, starting Friday July 1, "most Medicaid recipients in Mississippi will be limited to five prescription drugs at a time, with no process for appeal."

 


Blockbuster Drugs Are So Last Century

"DRUG companies do an awful job of finding new medicines. They rely too much on billion-dollar blockbuster drugs that are both overmarketed and overprescribed. And they have been too slow to disclose side effects of popular medicines.

Typical complaints from drug industry critics, right? Well, yes. Only this time they come from executives at Eli Lilly, the sixth-largest American drug maker and the company that invented Prozac.

...Lilly is ambitiously rethinking the way drugs are discovered and sold. In a speech to shareholders in April, Sidney Taurel, Lilly's chief executive, presented the company's new strategy in a pithy phrase: "the right dose of the right drug to the right patient at the right time."

In other words, Lilly sees its future not in blockbuster medicines like Prozac that are meant for tens of millions of patients, but rather in drugs that are aimed at smaller groups and can be developed more quickly and cheaply, possibly with fewer side effects."




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.





www.wlox.com...


After multiple heart attacks and transplants, William Schram's life depends on at least 14 prescriptions each month. But under a new state bill, Medicaid will only cover five.




"Diseases of aging" include heart disease and high blood pressure, cancer, stroke, COPD, diabetes, arthritis, obesity, and vascular dementias - and all can be linked to an underlying disease process that includes fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD), Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), and other cell mutations that result from misfolded proteins.

These 'diseases of aging' can be familial, and may result from congenital transmission or a disease-caused genetic mutation. However, most cases are acquired or sporadic, and although they usually are not contagious, result from an underlying infectious component.

The strength of personalized medicine - like the individually-tailored drug therapies described by Eli Lilly - is that it allows for early diagnosis and preventive treatments, which can prevent disease progression, and complications.

However, the insurance industry argues that early diagnosis and preventive treatments are too costly - and so, only covers interventions when symptoms are acute or life threatening. Mild or chronic symptoms that indicate the early stages of disease progression are not covered, and so, are routinely dismissed or ignored by doctors.

As a result of limitations on private insurance coverage and related public health policies, 'diseases of aging' are infecting people at younger ages with each new decade, and are affecting every nation's productivity and economy. Equally important, the costs to individuals, families, and society are very high.

As it stands, personalized medicine, and individually-tailored drug therapies, won't filter down to ordinary people. Instead, governments like the USA, Britain, Canada, and other nations of the G8 and signatory to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), are shifting attention away from the infectious component of 'aging' diseases, and focusing on lifestyle and "genetics."

"Early diagnosis" is offered as "fetal screening" for "genetic" disease, and abortion is the recommended "preventive treatment."


.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by soficrow]

[edit on 3-7-2005 by soficrow]




posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Glad to see the links got fixed.



.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
All I can really say is something like this was going to half to happen sooner or later. This is the second attempt I have heard at cutting benifits in a pretty big way to cut down on costs, I am sure more will follow.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
.
If we want to speculate,

The process:

1. Taking some kind of instant snapshot of the biology and chemistry of an organism.

2. Compare this to some baseline for this individual.

3. Come up with a stategy for putting this person's state at some optimum for their current context (at rest, exercising, understress, etc.) using either some chemical directly or some enzyme that will work with existing chemistry in the subject.

4. Manufacturing these designed constituents.

The technologies for this process are probably going to be pretty amazing.

Some kind of broad yet intricate sensory gathering technique would be needed. This would probably be most desirable if it is non-invasive. This would probably be pretty complex, to gather info on Ph states, dilution, cellular health, organ health, etc.

I would imagine the analysis and comparisons to some balanced state of health and the algorithms for determining a strategy and then designing the particular organic chemicals/proteins are going to demand some stupendous computing. I have images of a computer smoking as it works.

Then there is the ability to manufacture a specific designed organic molecule/protein. I can imagine bringing the electron field of an atom of a molecule in close proximity to another and seeing them merge, then they are rotated and a third constituent is added and a portion of one of the pieces is removed. They might use magnetic fields, enzymes and/or carbon nanotubes for this.
.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Red Golem - all true. As far as the Medicaid cutbacks go - the press is focusing mainly on AIDS patients, who are well and truly skrewed. ...Hopefully, everyone will wake up, realize we're looking at a series of epidemics with one underlying source - and start kicking up a fuss.



Originally posted by slank
.
If we want to speculate,

The process:




Yes - much like the way a diabetic monitors their blood sugar, just more comprehensive.








The technologies for this process are probably going to be pretty amazing.




They already are. My favorite is mass spectrometry - mainly because it seems able to monitor dynamic processes. ...Not available as a handheld yet tho.



What is mass spectrometry?
A History of Mass Spectometry
21st Asilomar Conference on Mass Spectrometry

But let's not forget what's happening in proteomics, genomics, and bioinformatics - to name just a few of the new headline grabbers.



I have images of a computer smoking as it works.


LOL. Which is why there are networks like SETI set up to unravel the protein puzzles - and keep the info in the public domain.




I can imagine bringing the electron field of an atom of a molecule in close proximity to another and seeing them merge, then they are rotated and a third constituent is added and a portion of one of the pieces is removed. They might use magnetic fields, enzymes and/or carbon nanotubes for this.
.



Me2. But I want mine organic, and naturally derived.



RE: radiation and losing the non-invasive approaches - see
www.abovetopsecret.com...

..



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
FYI - NYT also has a good article on Medicaid cutbacks:


Soaring Costs Force Deep Medicaid Cuts

.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Suggestion: Search for med pros who stress "cellular" vs. "organ" health, I.e., as advocated by the late Linus Pauling, PhD.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

hear is something else to look at if you would like put together some of the things that might have led up to this.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
The approach suggested would be much more patient specific so should result in far fewer side effects. The real question is, can a patient specific approach ever be cost-effective? Right now, I'de have to say it would not be cost-effective and I don't see how that could change until at least three things are available: 1. The capability to accurately scan & measure the current cellular physiology of an individual relatively cheaply., 2. Far more extensive knowledge of the proteins manufactured by our genes., and 3. The local (or at most regional) capability to actually formulate & manufacture the required medications. Seems to me (3) would pretty much have to be an automated process or it would be cost prohibitive. All-in-all, I don't see this kind of thing happening anytime soon.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
The real question is, can a patient specific approach ever be cost-effective? Right now, I'de have to say it would not be cost-effective



As it stands, diseases are allowed to progress until they become acute and/or life threatening. Most involve slowly progressive misfolded proteins, and fall into the "diseases of aging" category, which includes heart disease, cancer, stroke, COPD, diabetes, obesity, dementias, arthritis, and so on.

These so-called diseases of aging are striking younger people every decade - and are killing the economy. Impacts range from lost productivity, to horrifically increased uptake on disability.

The "cost-effective" argument is invalid - it does not accommodate any information except direct healthcare costs. ....The costs of economic/social impacts already are staggering. The costs of ignoring these impacts will bankrupt the nation - and lead to backward eugenics-genetics policies, and euthanasia.




and I don't see how that could change until at least three things are available: 1. The capability to accurately scan & measure the current cellular physiology of an individual relatively cheaply., 2. Far more extensive knowledge of the proteins manufactured by our genes., and 3. The local (or at most regional) capability to actually formulate & manufacture the required medications. Seems to me (3) would pretty much have to be an automated process or it would be cost prohibitive. All-in-all, I don't see this kind of thing happening anytime soon.



Testing capabilities already are far greater than most people know - and if allowed to eneter the market, would quickly take off. ...Mass manufacture and marketing is being blocked by the industrial powers that would be displaced.

...Ie., for quick snapshot of blocked capabilities for testing AND treatment, run a search for US "patents pending" with keywords +"fibromuscular dysplasia" +Parkinson's +arthritis + Alzheimers +stroke +cancer +"heart disease"

...and check approved patents too


FYI - re: your #3. ....The problem is not so much the proteins manufactured by our genes, but rather the proteins being hijacked and changed by prions, RNA interference, epigenetics, etc. and yada


.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Soficrow,
the these blocked testing and treatments for the health conditions that you menchened being used to any extent in other countries?



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

The "cost-effective" argument is invalid - it does not accommodate any information except direct healthcare costs. ....The costs of economic/social impacts already are staggering. The costs of ignoring these impacts will bankrupt the nation - and lead to backward eugenics-genetics policies, and euthanasia.


I'll have to reserve comment on most of your counter-arguments for somewhat later (I have to go to work in just a few minutes). However, I believe the cost-effective argument is valid. Quantification of lost productivity, social impacts, etc. are notoriously difficult to reach agreement on. I will stipulate they are high, but I hardly think they will bankrupt the nation and lead to backward eugenics-genetics policies, and euthanasia. On the other hand, the cost to formulate and manufacture patient specific medications would be relatively easy to quantify and be very visible. Further, the latter costs would be concentrated in a relatively small segment, which for ease of expression I'll just call the drugs industry, and those costs would be seen as prohibitively high on a per patient basis. I find it difficult to believe insurance companies, medicare and medicaid would be willing to absorb those costs. Granted, the present way of treating patients may be more expensive overall (especially in the long run), but those costs are spread out and largely invisible to most americans.

The situation is somewhat analogous to the visible cost of a specialized tool for, say, the air force. The public can see that the tool costs a specific, high price that seems exorbitant, but they can't see how much it would have cost to research other solutions, draw up a request for proposals, get and evaluate the various bids, negotiate and draw up an appropriate procurement contract and finally buy the cheaper tool. Most of the time the true cost of the cheaper tool would turn out to be higher than the cost of the specialized tool. My belief is that the same situation would exist concerning patient specific drugs (at least at the present time).

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Originally posted by soficrow

The "cost-effective" argument is invalid - it does not accommodate any information except direct healthcare costs. ....The costs of economic/social impacts already are staggering. The costs of ignoring these impacts will bankrupt the nation - and lead to backward eugenics-genetics policies, and euthanasia.


I believe the cost-effective argument is valid. Quantification of lost productivity, social impacts, etc. are notoriously difficult to reach agreement on.



Doesn't make them go away.






the cost to formulate and manufacture patient specific medications would be relatively easy to quantify and be very visible. Further, the latter costs would be concentrated in a relatively small segment, which for ease of expression I'll just call the drugs industry, and those costs would be seen as prohibitively high on a per patient basis.





The drug industry already is the most profitable in the world - now surpassing even oil. The bulk of drug profits come from blockbusters, which are relatively ineffective, and frequently dangerous. From the consumer perspective, the costs already are prohibitively high.

...Personalized medicine simply will replace blockbuster drugs, and lower the industry's profit margin.





I find it difficult to believe insurance companies, medicare and medicaid would be willing to absorb those costs.



No kidding. And they've been blocking it for decades. But these policies are killing us - and making us old before our time.





Granted, the present way of treating patients may be more expensive overall (especially in the long run), but those costs are spread out and largely invisible to most americans.



Not any more. Ever heard of the "aging population"? Did you know that even 10 years ago, only about 5% of the average nursing home's patient population suffered from dementia? But now, we're looking at 50% and climbing rapidly? ...and these patients aren't 70 or75 - they're 50 and 55. ...Just one example.





...Most of the time the true cost of the cheaper tool would turn out to be higher than the cost of the specialized tool. My belief is that the same situation would exist concerning patient specific drugs (at least at the present time).



...Kinda like the "hidden" costs of dissing environmental clean-ups too. LOL

And in both cases, negligence leads to drug industry growth, to "treat" secondary symptoms. Interesting how the world works, huh? And how it all works together...


IMO - if people had access to the real information, instead of disinformation, there would be no problem with "acceptance."



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Red Golem
Soficrow,
the these blocked testing and treatments for the health conditions that you menchened being used to any extent in other countries?



SORRY Red - missed this. ...The tests and treatments are available to those who can afford them - tests are called "immunohistochemical."

..."Personalized medicine" also is available to those who can pick up the tab for all the different tests. (also search bioinformatics)

...Various kinds of cell therapy, including stem cell therapy, are available in exclusive private clinics and have been since about 1912 (see Kuettner, Nichans, Switzerland). ...Cryogenic storage facilities were built in the USA in the 1960's for the rich to store their own bone marrow stem cells for later use (called "autologous" transplant).

...Technologies that combine tests and treatment are stalled in the US Patent office - ie., search +application +"fibromuscular dysplasia" +Alzheimer's +obesity +Parkinsons +stroke +heart (etc - the lists are long - because all these diseases start with the same misfolded protein, cascade from there, and mutate into new strains to create "new" diseases - but in many cases, it still may be possible to "stop it before it starts")

.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
This is a good article.
I'm sorry it's taken me so long to find it again.

It never ceases to amaze me how some men who call themselves healers behave.

All this governmental and corporate meddling would NEVER be allowed by a strong, unified, conscientious medical authority. Unfortunately, there is no such body. There are several pharmaceutical shills operating under the guise of public welfare, like the AMA and the NIH, but we KNOW who pays their mortages, right?

The pharmaceutical companies aren't really at fault, because the system says "make money at all costs." "First do no harm" does not apply to corporations whose first duty is to the shareholders. Until medicine is separated from the corporate mindset, no progress can be made.

At the moment, it's more lucrative for the drug pushers to repackage and reformulate proven successful "SYMPTOM RELIEF" medications for common nuisances like allergies and headaches, rather than spend a lot of money on finding cures for the debilitating and deadly diseases that pose a real threat.

There's also the question of self preservation that needs to be adressed. If the medical establishment could cure most diseases with a single treatment or series of treatments, would they ever get around to it, knowing that it would mean their end, for all intents and purposes?

It seems to me like it is in the best interest of the medical establishment to keep people sick, but alive. This explains the focus on symptom relief and the tendency to play ping pong with the patient's illnesses (for example, patient has headaches, dose with drug X, patient develops ulcers from drug exposure, treat with drug Y, patient develops anemia as a result of exposure to drug Y, treat with drug Z, and on, and on, and on.)

Funny place we live in, eh?



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Yeah, it really is a funny place unless you're one of the old or sick people in our country. It's extremely difficult to envision how this could ever change under our present health care "system." The U.S. leads the world in medical research and the researchers are homing in rapidly on real cures for a lot of medical problems. Nanotechnologies like quantum dots hold the promise of accelerating such research beyond it's already frenetic pace and even aiding understanding of proteins manufactured within us to express the genes. Hopefully corporate greed will not delay or sidetrack cures as they are discovered. However, I feel a complete overhaul of the system may be required before we can ever feel assured of the outcome.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nilknok37
Suggestion: Search for med pros who stress "cellular" vs. "organ" health, I.e., as advocated by the late Linus Pauling, PhD.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nilknok37
Suggestion: Search for med pros who stress "cellular" vs. "organ" health, I.e., as advocated by the late Linus Pauling, PhD.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nilknok37
Suggestion: Search for med pros who stress "cellular" vs. "organ" health, I.e., as advocated by the late Linus Pauling, PhD.


Agree wholeheartedly with above. Suggested reading of softcover by Dr. Matthias Rath "Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attack...But Humans Do". Matthias was associated with Pauling and has a cardiovascular program which works for me. Been using for about 6 mo. and am almost completely free of coventional prescsriptions approach. Get information on Lipoprotein(A) which is the culprit, not just LDL cholesteral. Docs don't normally screen for LP(A) because there's no conventional medication for it.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Just saw this was brought back up. Two new threads have info that is relevant here:

Stem Cells May Trigger Cancer

CDC's Quarantine New Rules





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join