Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states to require cervical-cancervaccine ...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/2007 10:43:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,

THEDUDMAN@... writes:

What about polio, small pox, measles, mumps, rubella, Hepatitis B; Hepatitis

A, Tetanus, Chicken Pox???

For one, they aren't sexually transmitted (with the exception of Hep , and

those vaccines don't cost several hundred bucks a dose.

Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc.

_www.medictrainingsolutions.com_ (http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/)

MEDIC Training Solutions

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/2007 10:54:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,

dsmith@... writes:

Do not forget that parents can opt out if they so choose. Personally,

it seems like a very good thing. If my daughter were still that young,

she damn sure would get it.

The point isn't whether the vaccine is a good thing - it is. The point is

that to MANDATE giving that vaccine to millions of school girls, either the

physicians or clinics administering it will have to eat the loss, and Merck

will

make vast sums of money doing it. Even your private insurance plans do not

yet cover it. They may soon, but most right now do not. Check with your insurer

first.

If the docs and clinics DON'T have to take the financial hit, that means the

state of Texas will have to subsidize it in some way. That means your tax

dollars will be paying for millions of girls to receive a vaccine that requires

a course of 3 shots over 6 months, that costs roughly $360 for the series.

That's $360 a girl, times several million girls. Every year. for a disease

that can be prevented by abstaining from sex. I know that's an unrealistic

view, but it begs the question - How do YOU feel about your tax dollars

supporting a vaccine for someone else's kid for a disease she can only get

through

unprotected sex? I have a problem with that.

Now when my daughter reaches that age, I will gladly shell out the bucks to

get her the HPV vaccine. That's called responsible parenting. But it is NOT

the responsibility of me, or my tax dollars, to do the same for someone else's

kid.

Hopefully, Louisiana will approach the issue with a more reasoned approach.

But who am I kidding - it's Louisiana government.

Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc.

_www.medictrainingsolutions.com_ (http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/)

MEDIC Training Solutions

[Guest guest]

Boy, I started something, didn't I? <eg>

I would throw out these questions:

1. If more people (as in States) mandate the program will the costs come

down?

2. Will the State of Texas negotiate a reduced price?

3. How will the cost/benefit thing work? What does it cost the taxpayers

to provide care for uninsured cancer victims?

4. If there were an HIV vaccination that came out tomorrow and cost the

same as the HPV vaccine, should the State of Anywhere require it?

Have at it! I'm enjoying this conversation.

Gene G.

>

>

>

> In a message dated 2/6/2007 10:54:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,

> dsmith@... writes:

>

> Do not forget that parents can opt out if they so choose. Personally,

> it seems like a very good thing. If my daughter were still that young,

> she damn sure would get it.

>

> The point isn't whether the vaccine is a good thing - it is. The point is

> that to MANDATE giving that vaccine to millions of school girls, either the

> physicians or clinics administering it will have to eat the loss, and Merck

> will

> make vast sums of money doing it. Even your private insurance plans do not

> yet cover it. They may soon, but most right now do not. Check with your

> insurer

> first.

>

> If the docs and clinics DON'T have to take the financial hit, that means the

> state of Texas will have to subsidize it in some way. That means your tax

> dollars will be paying for millions of girls to receive a vaccine that

> requires

> a course of 3 shots over 6 months, that costs roughly $360 for the series.

>

> That's $360 a girl, times several million girls. Every year. for a disease

> that can be prevented by abstaining from sex. I know that's an unrealistic

> view, but it begs the question - How do YOU feel about your tax dollars

> supporting a vaccine for someone else's kid for a disease she can only get

> through

> unprotected sex? I have a problem with that.

>

> Now when my daughter reaches that age, I will gladly shell out the bucks to

> get her the HPV vaccine. That's called responsible parenting. But it is NOT

> the responsibility of me, or my tax dollars, to do the same for someone

> else's

> kid.

>

> Hopefully, Louisiana will approach the issue with a more reasoned approach.

> But who am I kidding - it's Louisiana government.

>

>

>

> Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc.

> _www.medictrainings _www.med _www.http://www.medictrahttp://www.medihttp)

> MEDIC Training Solutions

>

>

[Guest guest]

Comments below.

GG

>

> Gene,

>

> You have posted some thought provoking questions. Here are my opinions...

>

> >

> > 1. If more people (as in States) mandate the program will the

> costs come

> > down?

>

> One would hope so since the citizens of Texas would be footing the

> bill, but don't drug companies have a 7 year patent of sorts to cover

> the costs of developing said vaccine? Seems to me it wouldn't be in

> their best interest to do so.

>

The patents last from 17 to 20 years, depending upon when they were granted.

>

> > 2. Will the State of Texas negotiate a reduced price?

>

> I could see the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid negotiating a

> reduced price, but not any individual states.

>

Congress has so far prohibited CMS from negotiating drug prices. Did you

know that? The current administration has successfully blocked all efforts to

let the U. S. Government negotiate drug prices. Hmmmmm. Why do you think

that is?

>

> > 3. How will the cost/benefit thing work? What does it cost the

> > taxpayers to provide care for uninsured cancer victims?

>

> The state receives federal money to partially compensate providing

> care for uninsured patients. However, by making an expensive

> vaccination mandatory, we have opened up a proverbial can of worms.

>

No argument there.

>

> > 4. If there were an HIV vaccination that came out tomorrow and

> cost the

> > same as the HPV vaccine, should the State of Anywhere require it?

> >

>

> Considering that HIV is more of a public health issue (0.6%

> penetration in the US according to the CIA World Fact Book) and has

> yet to be weaponized as a biological warfare agent, I would say such

> an action wouldn't be beneficial from a cost/benefit analysis.

> Another factor to consider is that as soon as HIV is conquered, mother

> mature will unleash something worse. ;-)

>

There's no doubt about that. Disease will never be wiped out.

>

> -Alfonso R. Ochoa

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This is true, the cost is outrageous, but if our existing immunizations

werent mandatory, a good number of our populous would not get them, then

we would be back into our epidemic outbreaks. So, if we can stave off

cervical cancer in women with a simple immunization why not? Dont get

cheesed off for the imposed resolution, get cheesed off at the

pharmacuetical corporations from making meds/immunizations so expensive.

(not like they are losing any money considering the billions of dollars

they get in federal subsadies. ) Once again this is my own humble

opinion.

Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states to require

cervical-cancervaccine ...

In a message dated 2/6/2007 10:43:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,

THEDUDMAN@... <mailto:THEDUDMAN%40aol.com> writes:

What about polio, small pox, measles, mumps, rubella, Hepatitis

B; Hepatitis

A, Tetanus, Chicken Pox???

For one, they aren't sexually transmitted (with the exception of

Hep , and

those vaccines don't cost several hundred bucks a dose.

Grayson, CCEMT-P, etc.

_www.medictrainingsolutions.com_

(http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/

<http://www.medictrainingsolutions.com/> )

MEDIC Training Solutions

[Guest guest]

Gene,

You have posted some thought provoking questions. Here are my opinions...

>

> 1. If more people (as in States) mandate the program will the

costs come

> down?

One would hope so since the citizens of Texas would be footing the

bill, but don't drug companies have a 7 year patent of sorts to cover

the costs of developing said vaccine? Seems to me it wouldn't be in

their best interest to do so.

> 2. Will the State of Texas negotiate a reduced price?

I could see the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid negotiating a

reduced price, but not any individual states.

> 3. How will the cost/benefit thing work? What does it cost the

> taxpayers to provide care for uninsured cancer victims?

The state receives federal money to partially compensate providing

care for uninsured patients. However, by making an expensive

vaccination mandatory, we have opened up a proverbial can of worms.

> 4. If there were an HIV vaccination that came out tomorrow and

cost the

> same as the HPV vaccine, should the State of Anywhere require it?

>

Considering that HIV is more of a public health issue (0.6%

penetration in the US according to the CIA World Fact Book) and has

yet to be weaponized as a biological warfare agent, I would say such

an action wouldn't be beneficial from a cost/benefit analysis.

Another factor to consider is that as soon as HIV is conquered, mother

mature will unleash something worse. ;-)

-Alfonso R. Ochoa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/2007 10:42:43 PM Central Standard Time,

THEDUDMAN@... writes:

What about polio, small pox, measles, mumps, rubella, Hepatitis B; Hepatitis

A, Tetanus, Chicken Pox???

All these are required by law as well...

Dudley

you forgot HiB and menningitis....and my job in the ED has gotten much

easier since those two immunizations became routine!

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/6/2007 11:29:36 PM Central Standard Time,

wegandy1938@... writes:

1. If more people (as in States) mandate the program will the costs come

down?

ck: it should

2. Will the State of Texas negotiate a reduced price?

ck: they should, and that should be a factor in the reduced price

3. How will the cost/benefit thing work? What does it cost the taxpayers

to provide care for uninsured cancer victims?

ck: quite a bit. HPV is a major factor cervical cancer, still the most

prevalent and preventable form of female cancer...also one with a surprising

cost

of mortality and morbidity.

4. If there were an HIV vaccination that came out tomorrow and cost the

same as the HPV vaccine, should the State of Anywhere require it?

ck: HELL YES! I'd prefer to see a Hep C immunzation first....

ck

S. Krin, DO FAAFP

[Guest guest]

Comment to Question 2 below...

> >

> > > 2. Will the State of Texas negotiate a reduced price?

> >

> > I could see the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid negotiating a

> > reduced price, but not any individual states.

> >

> Congress has so far prohibited CMS from negotiating drug prices.

Did you

> know that? The current administration has successfully blocked all

efforts to

> let the U. S. Government negotiate drug prices. Hmmmmm. Why do

you think

> that is?

>

I wasn't aware that of that fact, no. However, I assumed that they

would negotiate at least some discount when they rolled out Medicare

Part D. So the current population who are on Medicare Part D receive

their medicines from the federal government who pays full price

(assuming there are no generic brands available)?

-Alfonso R. Ochoa

[Guest guest]

And now you wonder why the pharmaceutical companies didn't oppose Medicare Part

D? ;-)

-Wes

Re: Fwd: Merck lobbies states to require

cervical-cancervaccine ...

Comment to Question 2 below...

> >

> > > 2. Will the State of Texas negotiate a reduced price?

> >

> > I could see the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid negotiating a

> > reduced price, but not any individual states.

> >

> Congress has so far prohibited CMS from negotiating drug prices.

Did you

> know that? The current administration has successfully blocked all

efforts to

> let the U. S. Government negotiate drug prices. Hmmmmm. Why do

you think

> that is?

>

I wasn't aware that of that fact, no. However, I assumed that they

would negotiate at least some discount when they rolled out Medicare

Part D. So the current population who are on Medicare Part D receive

their medicines from the federal government who pays full price

(assuming there are no generic brands available)?

-Alfonso R. Ochoa

________________________________________________________________________

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security

tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free

AOL Mail and more.

[Guest guest]

I'm shocked I tell you! :-)

-Alfonso R. Ochoa

>

> And now you wonder why the pharmaceutical companies didn't oppose

Medicare Part D? ;-)

>

> -Wes

>