Pennsylvania uses 'weighted lottery' to distribute lifesaving remdesivir in favor of low-income patients

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
Mommamia
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:32 pm

Unread post

Not only do Dems want to redistribute your wealth, they are now going after life saving medicine.
-------------
The antiviral drug remdisivir has been effective in treating COVID-19, reducing risk of death for severely ill patients by 62 percent. It is also scarce, leaving a number of states in fear of running out as coronavirus cases continue to rise across the country.

As a solution to this problem, Pennsylvania is encouraging healthcare providers to use a “weighted lottery” system to decide which patients are treated with this lifesaving drug and who goes without. Instead of medical need being the deciding factor of who receives a drug, this lottery is weighted in favor of those who sit lower on the socioeconomic spectrum.

Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York and chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, is concerned that this move is not being given proper attention and could have huge implications for the health care system moving forward.

“They've decided to do some social engineering and tilt the scales and make sure that the drug goes to people who live in low-income areas in preference to patients, maybe in the same ICU with the same medical problems, who live in a nicer neighborhood,” McCaughey told Fox News.

Cont'd.....https://www.foxnews.com/media/pa-hospit ... e-patients
jessilin0113
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:42 pm

Unread post

Eh, this is too reductive. They aren't getting weighed more *just* because they are poor, but because they are poor they are more at risk due to various comorbidities, as well as more likely to be essential workers who will go back out to the community because they can't afford not to.
Epidemiological data reveal a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 in low income communities and certain racial/ ethnic minorities. For example, a recent study found that individuals who resided in a low-income area had increased odds of a hospital admission from COVID-19.ii Health inequities may arise from multiple causes, including higher burdens of comorbid disease, poor health care access, infeasibility of social distancing due to living in densely-populated neighborhoods and households, the higher proportion of economically disadvantaged individuals who work in jobs classified as "essential" during the pandemic, and the need to continue to work in public-facing occupations due to economic hardship.
https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/diseas ... ework.aspx
Mommamia
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:32 pm

Unread post

jessilin0113 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:58 pm Eh, this is too reductive. They aren't getting weighed more *just* because they are poor, but because they are poor they are more at risk due to various comorbidities, as well as more likely to be essential workers who will go back out to the community because they can't afford not to.
Epidemiological data reveal a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 in low income communities and certain racial/ ethnic minorities. For example, a recent study found that individuals who resided in a low-income area had increased odds of a hospital admission from COVID-19.ii Health inequities may arise from multiple causes, including higher burdens of comorbid disease, poor health care access, infeasibility of social distancing due to living in densely-populated neighborhoods and households, the higher proportion of economically disadvantaged individuals who work in jobs classified as "essential" during the pandemic, and the need to continue to work in public-facing occupations due to economic hardship.
https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/diseas ... ework.aspx
No, it's states playing God and deciding who they want to save and who they don't. This will hurt the middle class more than anyone. The poor will get the medicine and the rich can pay for it themselves. That leaves the middle class out in the cold. One more economic nail in the middle class coffin.

The poor don't have exclusivity on diabetes, obesity, heart problems, etc. Millions of people have comorbidities that make them highly likely to die if they get COVID. In fact young people can die from this virus because they have underlying health problems. So, the suburban mom can figuratively kiss her child goodbye because some dr decided that a poor person was more deserving of that lifesaving med, simply because he/she is poor.

How is a poor person's life worth more than the farmer in the next room or cubicle who is just as sick?

This is one of those very slippery slopes. With this SJW move, it's not going to stop at Remdisivir. Hospitals, drs, et al will feel justified in picking who gets the med the next time there is a shortage of some life saving drug.
jessilin0113
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:42 pm

Unread post

Mommamia wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 am
jessilin0113 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:58 pm Eh, this is too reductive. They aren't getting weighed more *just* because they are poor, but because they are poor they are more at risk due to various comorbidities, as well as more likely to be essential workers who will go back out to the community because they can't afford not to.
Epidemiological data reveal a disproportionate burden of COVID-19 in low income communities and certain racial/ ethnic minorities. For example, a recent study found that individuals who resided in a low-income area had increased odds of a hospital admission from COVID-19.ii Health inequities may arise from multiple causes, including higher burdens of comorbid disease, poor health care access, infeasibility of social distancing due to living in densely-populated neighborhoods and households, the higher proportion of economically disadvantaged individuals who work in jobs classified as "essential" during the pandemic, and the need to continue to work in public-facing occupations due to economic hardship.
https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/diseas ... ework.aspx
No, it's states playing God and deciding who they want to save and who they don't. This will hurt the middle class more than anyone. The poor will get the medicine and the rich can pay for it themselves. That leaves the middle class out in the cold. One more economic nail in the middle class coffin.

The poor don't have exclusivity on diabetes, obesity, heart problems, etc. Millions of people have comorbidities that make them highly likely to die if they get COVID. In fact young people can die from this virus because they have underlying health problems. So, the suburban mom can figuratively kiss her child goodbye because some dr decided that a poor person was more deserving of that lifesaving med, simply because he/she is poor.

How is a poor person's life worth more than the farmer in the next room or cubicle who is just as sick?

This is one of those very slippery slopes. With this SJW move, it's not going to stop at Remdisivir. Hospitals, drs, et al will feel justified in picking who gets the med the next time there is a shortage of some life saving drug.
They *have* to "play God"; supplies are limited. Choices have to be made. It happens all the time.

Two people go in with Covid, and require the same level of care and have roughly the same health situation otherwise. There is one dose of the medication. How would you decide who gets it? Person A is a non-essential worker and has a job that allows her to work remotely and the ability to self-isloate for as long as necessary. Person B is an essential worker who can't afford to take time off and will be back in the community when she is better. Who gets the medication?
Mommamia
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2020 6:32 pm

Unread post

jessilin0113 wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:07 am
Mommamia wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 am
jessilin0113 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:58 pm Eh, this is too reductive. They aren't getting weighed more *just* because they are poor, but because they are poor they are more at risk due to various comorbidities, as well as more likely to be essential workers who will go back out to the community because they can't afford not to.



https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/diseas ... ework.aspx
No, it's states playing God and deciding who they want to save and who they don't. This will hurt the middle class more than anyone. The poor will get the medicine and the rich can pay for it themselves. That leaves the middle class out in the cold. One more economic nail in the middle class coffin.

The poor don't have exclusivity on diabetes, obesity, heart problems, etc. Millions of people have comorbidities that make them highly likely to die if they get COVID. In fact young people can die from this virus because they have underlying health problems. So, the suburban mom can figuratively kiss her child goodbye because some dr decided that a poor person was more deserving of that lifesaving med, simply because he/she is poor.

How is a poor person's life worth more than the farmer in the next room or cubicle who is just as sick?

This is one of those very slippery slopes. With this SJW move, it's not going to stop at Remdisivir. Hospitals, drs, et al will feel justified in picking who gets the med the next time there is a shortage of some life saving drug.
They *have* to "play God"; supplies are limited. Choices have to be made. It happens all the time.

Two people go in with Covid, and require the same level of care and have roughly the same health situation otherwise. There is one dose of the medication. How would you decide who gets it? Person A is a non-essential worker and has a job that allows her to work remotely and the ability to self-isloate for as long as necessary. Person B is an essential worker who can't afford to take time off and will be back in the community when she is better. Who gets the medication?
Your analogy doesn't work. Remdisivir is only administered to patients with severe COVID. So that 'non-essential' woman isn't likely to live long enough to work from home.

This is interesting.....

Remdesivir was studied in clinical trials for Ebola virus infections but showed limited benefit. [163] Remdesivir has been shown to inhibit replication of other human coronaviruses associated with high morbidity in tissue cultures, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012

I'm wondering why Giliad didn't finish making this drug? It was only a matter of time before another pandemic would strike. They're going to make a fortune off of it, which I read today is now about $3,000 for a 5 day treatment plan of 2 doses a day.
jessilin0113
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:42 pm

Unread post

Mommamia wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:28 am
jessilin0113 wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:07 am
Mommamia wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 am

No, it's states playing God and deciding who they want to save and who they don't. This will hurt the middle class more than anyone. The poor will get the medicine and the rich can pay for it themselves. That leaves the middle class out in the cold. One more economic nail in the middle class coffin.

The poor don't have exclusivity on diabetes, obesity, heart problems, etc. Millions of people have comorbidities that make them highly likely to die if they get COVID. In fact young people can die from this virus because they have underlying health problems. So, the suburban mom can figuratively kiss her child goodbye because some dr decided that a poor person was more deserving of that lifesaving med, simply because he/she is poor.

How is a poor person's life worth more than the farmer in the next room or cubicle who is just as sick?

This is one of those very slippery slopes. With this SJW move, it's not going to stop at Remdisivir. Hospitals, drs, et al will feel justified in picking who gets the med the next time there is a shortage of some life saving drug.
They *have* to "play God"; supplies are limited. Choices have to be made. It happens all the time.

Two people go in with Covid, and require the same level of care and have roughly the same health situation otherwise. There is one dose of the medication. How would you decide who gets it? Person A is a non-essential worker and has a job that allows her to work remotely and the ability to self-isloate for as long as necessary. Person B is an essential worker who can't afford to take time off and will be back in the community when she is better. Who gets the medication?
Your analogy doesn't work. Remdisivir is only administered to patients with severe COVID. So that 'non-essential' woman isn't likely to live long enough to work from home.

This is interesting.....

Remdesivir was studied in clinical trials for Ebola virus infections but showed limited benefit. [163] Remdesivir has been shown to inhibit replication of other human coronaviruses associated with high morbidity in tissue cultures, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) in 2003 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012

I'm wondering why Giliad didn't finish making this drug? It was only a matter of time before another pandemic would strike. They're going to make a fortune off of it, which I read today is now about $3,000 for a 5 day treatment plan of 2 doses a day.
It's applicable. Most people won't die from Covid. Regardless, it's still true that supplies are limited and choices have to be made. It happens every day in health care.
MommyTutu
Regent
Regent
Posts: 2239
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:57 am

Unread post

It's interesting. When there is a limited supply, there has to be some criteria for deciding who gets the goods. I'm not sure that favoring the low income patients is the way to go with something like medication, but it's certainly interesting. I do wonder how "weighted" this system is.
Della
Princess
Princess
Posts: 21975
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/diseas ... ework.aspx

Oh for heaven sake, read reality instead of delusional paranoia.
306/232

But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3029
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

MommyTutu wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:09 am It's interesting. When there is a limited supply, there has to be some criteria for deciding who gets the goods. I'm not sure that favoring the low income patients is the way to go with something like medication, but it's certainly interesting. I do wonder how "weighted" this system is.
All of society's resources are heavily weighted for the rich. This is a switcheroo.
Pjmm
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 18971
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:31 am

Unread post

Thelma Harper wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:52 am https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/diseas ... ework.aspx

Oh for heaven sake, read reality instead of delusional paranoia.
Well how else is Fox news and other TV stations going to make money? It won't be from that article that one has to slowly read through. Nope got to be sensational, an attention grabber. While it's our fault too some of these news people should be ashamed of themselves.
Locked Previous topicNext topic