Advertisement

7 Responses

  1. Bernard Farrell
    Bernard Farrell June 28, 2013 at 7:46 am | | Reply

    Choice is always better for the patient, and generally means lower costs down the road for insurers. Recently CVS Caremark decided to drop coverage for Humalog. Which leaves pump users with one real choice (because Apidra doesn’t work well in all pumps).

    Thank you for pointing out these campaigns, perhaps that will give us some power in influencing providers.

  2. Mary Dexter
    Mary Dexter June 28, 2013 at 8:31 am | | Reply

    Why isn’t Congress pushing to cover more American-made products?

  3. Stephanie Bradford
    Stephanie Bradford June 28, 2013 at 9:04 am | | Reply

    Choice is absolutely necessary, but we’ve been down this road before with private insurance– I personally have had (over the past 20 years) syringes not covered because they were “durable medical equipment,” insulin not covered because there was no generic, and pumps flat out denied because the technology was too new.

    The problem is that we have a health care industry in this country– and industries are businesses, not models for compassionate care.

    The health care reform does allow people with pre-existing conditions to, at least, get insurance.

    The two national movements seem focused on education– are they also engaged in advocacy? Where is the ADA on this issue?

  4. Arcpoint Labs of Dayton
    Arcpoint Labs of Dayton June 28, 2013 at 11:59 am | | Reply

    Choice is very important, it doesn’t come to mind for those that don’t personally have to deal with it. Although people are fortunate to have more choices these days compared to 35 years ago, can you imagine?

  5. StephenS
    StephenS June 28, 2013 at 1:03 pm | | Reply

    Unfortunately, it seems like Congress wants to promote a system full of lots of choices… for businesses to go overseas with manufacturing, to cheapen products at the expense of quality, to restrict reimbursement for anything they’re not getting paid for, or that they don’t understand.

    For patients? Not so much. Choices (read: applicable standards) for the patient would just restrict the “free market” system from generating cash flow.

    I’m thinking there must be some common ground where almost all of us can be happy, and by working together, maybe we can find it. But I’m not seeing it anywhere in the upcoming Medicare changes.

  6. Cricket
    Cricket July 22, 2013 at 9:46 am | | Reply

    I am not sure we need dozens of glucose meters. We need just enough to insure competition. What we need is meter accuracy. As a cgm user, I am asked to go by the meter reading instead of the cgm for insulin bolusing and yet the meter is allowed to be +/- 20%. What kind of calibration is that?! How accurate is my self-treatment? In a life and death disease like diabetes, I don’t understand why the FDA thinks it is OK for us to work with such inaccurate tools.

  7. Luitpoldt
    Luitpoldt July 10, 2014 at 10:56 am | | Reply

    Since the cure for diabetes will have to come from Big Pharma, the more profitable patients make the marketing of products for diabetics which do not cure the disease, the longer the cure will take. The best thing for patients to do if they want a cure is to buy only the bare minimum of medically necessary items and nothing more.

Leave a Reply