Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Side Effects Vs. Costs

This morning an email on the discontinuation of a certain drug which the article says is a good thing because it will save billions of dollars. The drug in question is TKI and is used to treat CML. It works well at putting people in remission but comes with a high financial cost, $147,000 per year and causes many side effects.

This made me think. Which is more important - financial cost or side effects?

I am torn on this one. A drug that costs $147,000 per year is phenomenally expensive. If it was a branded drug on my insurance I would be charged probably 40% of that cost. Could I afford that? Even without pulling out a calculator that would be somewhere north of $50,000 each year. I do not have that kind of money.

I have problems with my high cost medications. I am on several that each cost me over $1000/year - which to me is a lot.

Then there is the side effect issue. I am on medications for the side effects of some of my other medications. I also have to have regular blood work and chest x-rays done to monitor for other side effects. (Sometimes I think I might be better off if I took no medications at all.)

But this is a bit of a conundrum - side effects or costs.


Esther said...

Whoa! this is a catch 22 situation, but then you are asking the correct question. it is lke choosing between two evils

Allan said...

For sure this is a tricky one, u will definately be torn between cost and side effects