It was like I had to make a decision at that office visit and at the same time make it right away because we’re going to get the paperwork to the Sharon’s company so we know that you’re covered. That seemed a little odd to me, what’s more important getting approved by the insurance company or taken MYsituation into account.
No offense, but I have to wonder if you read that wrong. Ocrevus is a "humanized" version of another older drug used for MS. With that change the drug company got a new patent. Thus, Ocrevus is expensive, something like $60K or more for a year's treatment.
If you have typical for-profit, private health insurance, that insurance company's goal is profit and not necessarily your health. I'd guess that's why the doctor wanted to ensure he got the paperwork in fast -- to make sure Ocrevus would be paid for.
Many health insurance plans want to start MS patients off on cheap drugs. That's fine for their profit margin. If the patient then shows new lesions on the cheaper drug only then
will the insurance corporation move the patient to a more expensive drug.
But the issue here should not be cost -- at least from the patient's point-of-view.
The issue of the drug should be a high efficacy/effectiveness on MS! And, of course, side effects. Copaxone, for example, does not have a high efficacy, but it has relatively low side effects and it's cheap
for the insurance company.
Think about that dynamic: The for-profit health insurance corporation is saying to make them money, they're willing to put you on a cheap drug, use you as a guinea pig, and only when you develop more permanent brain damage
will they move you to a more effective, more costly drug that will impact their profits more.
Isn't that exactly
what is going on here? Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong.
Since I'm the patient and since it's my brain that is being damaged, my opinion is that I want the best, most effective, highest efficacy drug from the start -- and damn the private, for-profit health insurance corporation's profits. Just my blunt opinion.
i am a patient, not a science project.
Since I'm on Ocrevus, please don't think I'm defending that drug. I want the drug with the best efficacy/effectiveness -- in other words, I'm selfish and am only concerned with my health. :)
Ocrevus is a serious immuno-suppressant, only semi-recently FDA approved. I just noted your "science project" comment and if there's some danger or something I should know about Ocrevus, please clue me in. TIA.