| ▲ | dabinat 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I’m currently on Spravato, which is fully emblematic of how broken the incentives in the US healthcare system are. Spravato is esketamine - a modified version of ketamine. Ketamine is made up of mirror image molecules and esketamine is the right-handed molecule. They did this because ketamine is off-patent so they needed to modify it in order to patent it, however there is evidence that esketamine is a less effective treatment than ketamine. It’s very cheap for me but my insurance company pays about $17k a month for this treatment. Ketamine would be a more effective treatment that would be super cheap for them, but they don’t do it because it’s not FDA-approved. So they’re paying a fortune for a less effective treatment. It would be in the insurance companies’ interests to band together to fund the research so they can save huge amounts of money in the long term but they do not do this. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> It would be in the insurance companies’ interests to band together to fund the research so they can save huge amounts of money in the long term but they do not do this. Insurance companies do not want cheaper care. In the US, insurance companies must spend 80% of premiums on care. So if you pay $1k/mo, they have to pay out at least $800/mo in care. (Not to you specifically, but averaged out across all subscribers.) This is a cap on their potential profits. They always have to pay out 80% of premiums for care, so how do they make more money? Well, imagine care is twice as expensive. Instead of paying $800, they have to pay $1600. That sounds worse, but, instead of $200/mo, they now $400/mo for themselves! So, no, paradoxically, it is not in the interest of people paying for the treatment to save money. Quite the opposite. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | refurb 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blame the FDA on that one. The FDA's policy for the last couple of decades is that mixtures of mirror images will not get FDA approval unless there is a strong rationale for it. Racemic mixture of ketamine was approved decades ago. If you want a new indication for ketamine, you will need to get approval for a single mirror image, as the FDA won't approve the old drug. They did this because there are numerous examples of racemic mixture drugs having increased side effects from the less active mirror image, so the FDA decided no more racemic approvals. My guess is your insurer would be happy to pay for the old version, but your doctor is heavily incentivized to use the new version as the markup on the drug is much, much higher. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | pkaye 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
So in Ketamine approved as a treatment in other countries but not in the US? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Natsu an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Ketamine is made up of mirror image molecules and esketamine is the right-handed molecule. Esketamine is their cutesy way of saying the word s-ketamine. The s- comes from the Latin word "sinister" which means this is the left-handed enantiomer, not the right-handed one. It is stupidly expensive, given how generic ketamine itself is. In our case, sleep apnea treatment proved to be a much better option than that drug, as it was just hiding an underlying condition and the treatments only last for maybe a week or two anyway. I think there have been some people using ketamine off-label, but I don't know much about that. It does need to be tightly controlled because it can cause breakthrough psychosis in some patients. They try to screen those out, but that's not as effective as one might hope given my experience of seeing that fail. And it that was very nearly a fatal mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||