not NICE
-
How does the American Food & Drug Administration approve or disapprove treatments and what procedures do they follow in order to come to a decision. I would think there are multiple stages before a treatment receives approval by the FDA. There is no difference in UK where multiple stages are also conducted. Where any appreciable differences are involves how the treatments are funded and in the UK, funding for such treatment comes from taxation - the public purse - consequently, additional stages are included such as price of treatment, comparison of new against existing treatments for added value, cost effectiveness of treatment in terms of longer life.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Where any appreciable differences are involves how the treatments are funded and in the UK, funding for such treatment comes from taxation - the public purse - consequently, additional stages are included such as price of treatment, comparison of new against existing treatments for added value, cost effectiveness of treatment in terms of longer life.
...beam me up, Scotty... X|
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
How does the American Food & Drug Administration approve or disapprove treatments and what procedures do they follow in order to come to a decision. I would think there are multiple stages before a treatment receives approval by the FDA. There is no difference in UK where multiple stages are also conducted. Where any appreciable differences are involves how the treatments are funded and in the UK, funding for such treatment comes from taxation - the public purse - consequently, additional stages are included such as price of treatment, comparison of new against existing treatments for added value, cost effectiveness of treatment in terms of longer life.
Thank you for information.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Where any appreciable differences are involves how the treatments are funded and in the UK, funding for such treatment comes from taxation - the public purse - consequently, additional stages are included such as price of treatment, comparison of new against existing treatments for added value, cost effectiveness of treatment in terms of longer life.
That's a big difference. I, my doc and my insurance company under current US system would work out what treatment I will get, much closer to 'customer'. Blanket centralized policy on cost/benefit is scary, especially if age plays a role in treatment.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Where any appreciable differences are involves how the treatments are funded and in the UK, funding for such treatment comes from taxation - the public purse - consequently, additional stages are included such as price of treatment, comparison of new against existing treatments for added value, cost effectiveness of treatment in terms of longer life.
...beam me up, Scotty... X|
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
The trouble is, a system that considers the welfare of the patient, because the state is in a position to investigate such things, can't possibly be as bad as the hideously corrupt system in the US that is geared only to profit, with the result that, for example, a pathetic number of people are on anti depression medicine without ever seeing a mental health professional, and the stuff is advertised on TV incessantly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
The trouble is, a system that considers the welfare of the patient, because the state is in a position to investigate such things, can't possibly be as bad as the hideously corrupt system in the US that is geared only to profit, with the result that, for example, a pathetic number of people are on anti depression medicine without ever seeing a mental health professional, and the stuff is advertised on TV incessantly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
My doctor, insurance company and myself are closer to the problem (diagnosis/treatment). Better we solve it than government agency.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
The trouble is, a system that considers the welfare of the patient, because the state is in a position to investigate such things, can't possibly be as bad as the hideously corrupt system in the US that is geared only to profit, with the result that, for example, a pathetic number of people are on anti depression medicine without ever seeing a mental health professional, and the stuff is advertised on TV incessantly.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
can't possibly be as bad as the hideously corrupt system in the US that is geared only to profit,
yeah, it can.
Christian Graus wrote:
with the result that, for example, a pathetic number of people are on anti depression medicine without ever seeing a mental health professional, and the stuff is advertised on TV incessantly.
sure, because seeing some soulless, uncaring bureaucrat would just make all the difference. But, hey, at least no one would be earning a profit. :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Thank you for information.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Where any appreciable differences are involves how the treatments are funded and in the UK, funding for such treatment comes from taxation - the public purse - consequently, additional stages are included such as price of treatment, comparison of new against existing treatments for added value, cost effectiveness of treatment in terms of longer life.
That's a big difference. I, my doc and my insurance company under current US system would work out what treatment I will get, much closer to 'customer'. Blanket centralized policy on cost/benefit is scary, especially if age plays a role in treatment.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
Blanket centralized policy on cost/benefit is scary, especially if age plays a role in treatment.
But the fact is that 90% - ninety percent! - of the money we are spending on health care is spent during the last year of life. That's insane. Simply by looking at some sort of cost benefit rationing for what are termed "heroic measures" we could solve, immediately the problems we're facing because of medicare and medicaid. (Fulminating about them won't make them go away.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Thank you for information.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Where any appreciable differences are involves how the treatments are funded and in the UK, funding for such treatment comes from taxation - the public purse - consequently, additional stages are included such as price of treatment, comparison of new against existing treatments for added value, cost effectiveness of treatment in terms of longer life.
That's a big difference. I, my doc and my insurance company under current US system would work out what treatment I will get, much closer to 'customer'. Blanket centralized policy on cost/benefit is scary, especially if age plays a role in treatment.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
I, my doc and my insurance company under current US system would work out what treatment I will get
But whatever that treatment including the provision of drugs of ANY kind first have to be approved by your federal medical authorities and your FDA government bodies. After all, we don't want you being "experimented" upon with potentially unsafe, untested and unsound practices/drugs. However, it is a pity you did not understand what I wrote. Before ANY treatment that includes, for example, the issue of prescription drugs, those drugs needs to be assessed in a correct and proper fashion to (1) ensure they are safe, (2) ensure they do what the drug manufacturer says they do, including any side-effects, (3) cost effective in comparison to existing treatments, (4) cost effective in terms of patient care including enhanced longevity in their live, and so forth. It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
-
My doctor, insurance company and myself are closer to the problem (diagnosis/treatment). Better we solve it than government agency.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionYou're an idiot. You think your doctor has time to research every treatment ? You think your insurance agency has your best interests at heart ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
can't possibly be as bad as the hideously corrupt system in the US that is geared only to profit,
yeah, it can.
Christian Graus wrote:
with the result that, for example, a pathetic number of people are on anti depression medicine without ever seeing a mental health professional, and the stuff is advertised on TV incessantly.
sure, because seeing some soulless, uncaring bureaucrat would just make all the difference. But, hey, at least no one would be earning a profit. :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
because seeing some soulless, uncaring bureaucrat would just make all the differenc
Why would you see a bureaucrat instead of a doctor ? How could any government employee be more soulless than your insurance company ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, hey, at least no one would be earning a profit.
Plenty of people turn a profit working in the health field in the UK and here in Australia.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
I, my doc and my insurance company under current US system would work out what treatment I will get
But whatever that treatment including the provision of drugs of ANY kind first have to be approved by your federal medical authorities and your FDA government bodies. After all, we don't want you being "experimented" upon with potentially unsafe, untested and unsound practices/drugs. However, it is a pity you did not understand what I wrote. Before ANY treatment that includes, for example, the issue of prescription drugs, those drugs needs to be assessed in a correct and proper fashion to (1) ensure they are safe, (2) ensure they do what the drug manufacturer says they do, including any side-effects, (3) cost effective in comparison to existing treatments, (4) cost effective in terms of patient care including enhanced longevity in their live, and so forth. It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
However, it is a pity you did not understand what I wrote.
Of course he didn't.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
can't possibly be as bad as the hideously corrupt system in the US that is geared only to profit,
yeah, it can.
Christian Graus wrote:
with the result that, for example, a pathetic number of people are on anti depression medicine without ever seeing a mental health professional, and the stuff is advertised on TV incessantly.
sure, because seeing some soulless, uncaring bureaucrat would just make all the difference. But, hey, at least no one would be earning a profit. :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
sure, because seeing some soulless, uncaring bureaucrat would just make all the difference.
Do I take it you are happy to be "experimented" upon with medical people using potentially unsafe, untested and unsound practices/procedures/drugs. No doubt in government bodies some bureaucrats exists, but those making the decision are highly qualified professionals operating within a certain field of specialty. They are far better qualified than your local GP, or for that matter, your insurance company.
-
You're an idiot. You think your doctor has time to research every treatment ? You think your insurance agency has your best interests at heart ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
You're an idiot
I have noticed that you people that have socialist health care plans get very upset when it is criticized as if you are insulting your country itself, which is not the case.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
MrPlankton wrote:
Blanket centralized policy on cost/benefit is scary, especially if age plays a role in treatment.
But the fact is that 90% - ninety percent! - of the money we are spending on health care is spent during the last year of life. That's insane. Simply by looking at some sort of cost benefit rationing for what are termed "heroic measures" we could solve, immediately the problems we're facing because of medicare and medicaid. (Fulminating about them won't make them go away.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
What age cutoff do you suggest? Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
Christian Graus wrote:
You're an idiot
I have noticed that you people that have socialist health care plans get very upset when it is criticized as if you are insulting your country itself, which is not the case.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionIn Britain, the media, charities and other support groups regularly criticize NICE because of some decision they have taken. Sometimes the criticism is justified, other times not so. Presumably the same is true in America where the FDA have made a decision that has not universal approval.
-
MrPlankton wrote:
I, my doc and my insurance company under current US system would work out what treatment I will get
But whatever that treatment including the provision of drugs of ANY kind first have to be approved by your federal medical authorities and your FDA government bodies. After all, we don't want you being "experimented" upon with potentially unsafe, untested and unsound practices/drugs. However, it is a pity you did not understand what I wrote. Before ANY treatment that includes, for example, the issue of prescription drugs, those drugs needs to be assessed in a correct and proper fashion to (1) ensure they are safe, (2) ensure they do what the drug manufacturer says they do, including any side-effects, (3) cost effective in comparison to existing treatments, (4) cost effective in terms of patient care including enhanced longevity in their live, and so forth. It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision. As your country slides into the abyss, I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government, good luck on influencing that outcome as it relates to you and your family.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
What age cutoff do you suggest? Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
Do you want to participate in the decision of your health care you shall recieve or do you want your government to decide for you?
Are you totally ignorant ? Have you thought to research the systems you are attacking ? I have full control over my health care. I can get any treatment I want. All that happens is that the degree to which the cost of treatment is covered by medicare, varies. The only differences I can think of, is that I don't have to have a job to be able to get health care, and drug companies are not allowed to try to sell me things I don't need, and that would in all probability do me harm. The US health system is fundamentally broken in many ways. No health system is perfect, but out of the UK, USA and Australia, the US is the place I'd least like to get any sort of treatment, and not just because it is so expensive. A simple doctors visit for a simple flu in the US resulted in doctors who ignored everything I said, misdiagnosed the problem, and cost me $500. Yeah, I felt so FREE as I forked that over and then rode out the flu anyhow.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
In Britain, the media, charities and other support groups regularly criticize NICE because of some decision they have taken. Sometimes the criticism is justified, other times not so. Presumably the same is true in America where the FDA have made a decision that has not universal approval.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Presumably the same is true in America where the FDA have made a decision that has not universal approval.
It is true, but the FDA does not decide who gets treated or not based on government monetary considerations.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the Constitution -
Christian Graus wrote:
You're an idiot
I have noticed that you people that have socialist health care plans get very upset when it is criticized as if you are insulting your country itself, which is not the case.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionI'm sorry, I'm not upset, I'm just astounded at the lack of any sort of common sense or reason in anything you have to say. I find that talking to people in the US who oppose any sort of health care that doesn't let the poor die, tend to live in a fantasy land with regards to the health system that I live under, and refuse to accept anything I say from personal experience as having equal or better weight to your various fantasies. Just like your owning a gun has bugger all to do with the likelyhood of your government becoming more corrupt or not.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision. As your country slides into the abyss, I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government, good luck on influencing that outcome as it relates to you and your family.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision.
you think an overworked, underpaid doctor and an insurance company whose sole goal is to deny you treatment and keep your money, are the ones who should do in depth research as to how effective a treatment is, and then decide if you can have it or not ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It is just not a matter of saying that "not NICE" without considering all the implications which is not a great deal different from what your American FDA and other such bodies do their work. Yet it is perfectly understandable that charities and other support groups would want certain drugs and/or treatments that either have not yet been assessed or have been rejected for one reason or another.
I do not trust your government or mine to make that decision. As your country slides into the abyss, I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government, good luck on influencing that outcome as it relates to you and your family.
MrPlankton
The Second Amendment, the Reset Button on the ConstitutionMrPlankton wrote:
I suspect the 'cost' versus result calculus will get ever more scrutiny by your government
This is something that all have to consider irrespective if it is socialized healthcare or private healthcare paid by an insurance company. Much better for those who are qualified to make such recommendations as to which treatments/drugs are safe than to rely upon the "garbage" that drug manufacturers spit out from their marketing and sales departments. Yet, I suppose your the sort of bloke that swallows lock, stock & barrel all the spiel that Microsoft's marketing machinery churns out, and how often has that been somewhat wrong.