I find it very wrong that people on life saving medications have to stop taking them for financial reasons. As reported recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, patients were forced to stop taking their life saving medications.
First, I will say the drug in question is relatively expensive - $4500/month. That equals $150/day or $54,000/year. But did the drug company have any ability to provide low cost prescriptions to needy patients? I know some that do (and then the question arises, why can't we all get cheaper drugs - but they need to pay for their overhead, blah, blah, blah. But that will be another post on another day.)
Now the first patient in question had to stop taking the medication due to decreased family income. When it comes to saving the house for all, or saving one person's life, you have to draw the line. But how? Who makes the choices? That would be an awful decision.
The second patient started his own business and couldn't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I have lived with a pre-existing condition for 29 years. I have juggled health care plans. (I was very happy when Massachusetts tightened up its consumer protection laws and got rid of the pre-existing loop hole years ago. Its a tough one to juggle. My health is on a need to know basis and if my doctor was telling me you are basically healthy, why should an insurance company say we can't insure you because of your health? But I digress.) This second patient couldn't get health insurance which shows what is wrong with the current system.
The third patient's business failed and he could no longer afford the medication. Again dollars and a human life.
I find it wrong that we are juggling people's lives and dollars. When does a human life get reduced to ability to pay? How wrong is that?