“We're in a situation where a cancer diagnosis is one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy.” (Stahl). Dr. Leonard Saltz, a prominent, American, oncologist working at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York said this while being interviewed for a story covering the high costs of cancer drugs on 60 minutes. This issue is only becoming worse, “The typical new cancer drug coming on the market a decade ago cost about $4,500 per month (in 2012 dollars)..." "Two of the new cancer drugs cost more than $35,000 each per month of treatment.” (Bach). To address this alarming trend, oncologists and cancer centers should be ethical by discussing costs compared to benefits in detail with their patients, and the government should allow Medicare
…show more content…
With the laws and regulations currently in effect, Medicare and Medicaid are forced, by law, to pay for any medicine. Private practice oncologists get their hands on 6% of the equipments cost, "if you're getting six percent of $10, that's nothing. If you're getting six percent of $10,000 that starts to add up. So now you have a real conflict of interest." (Stahl). These laws have made it so that a “doctor-patient visit, which involves no expensive equipment, offers no significant profit opportunity. So the best way for a doctor to make money in his practice is not to spend time with patients, but to use equipment as much as possible." (Paying Doctors …show more content…
They need to allow Medicare and Medicaid to work out prices with pharmaceutical companies. Also, our government should address oncologists compensation for care to one payment for the entire treatment, with focus on quality outcomes instead of per visit payments (Crenshaw). This way the provider will be compensated for cost effective, high quality care with satisfactory patient outcomes (Crenshaw). Until the government does something, healthcare systems should also make sure to talk over any overpriced medications with limited improvement in patient outcome coming into their cancer centers (Bach). Even though doctors don't perfer to get caught up in drug costs, it is their duty to guarantee the optimal outcome for their patient physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Prescribing a medication that bankrupts a patient, with minimal disease improvement is
With the laws and regulations currently in effect, Medicare and Medicaid are forced, by law, to pay for any medicine. Private practice oncologists get their hands on 6% of the equipments cost, "if you're getting six percent of $10, that's nothing. If you're getting six percent of $10,000 that starts to add up. So now you have a real conflict of interest." (Stahl). These laws have made it so that a “doctor-patient visit, which involves no expensive equipment, offers no significant profit opportunity. So the best way for a doctor to make money in his practice is not to spend time with patients, but to use equipment as much as possible." (Paying Doctors …show more content…
They need to allow Medicare and Medicaid to work out prices with pharmaceutical companies. Also, our government should address oncologists compensation for care to one payment for the entire treatment, with focus on quality outcomes instead of per visit payments (Crenshaw). This way the provider will be compensated for cost effective, high quality care with satisfactory patient outcomes (Crenshaw). Until the government does something, healthcare systems should also make sure to talk over any overpriced medications with limited improvement in patient outcome coming into their cancer centers (Bach). Even though doctors don't perfer to get caught up in drug costs, it is their duty to guarantee the optimal outcome for their patient physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Prescribing a medication that bankrupts a patient, with minimal disease improvement is