HikeArizona.COM

just read a crazy story, of how $100 vials of scorpion antivenin are being sold in Phoenix hospitals for over $12,000...

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... -cost.html

I read the same story, and I'm not going to pretend to defend the way drug companies charge for their products, but it does say that the drug company sells the drug for $3,500 and it is marked up to $3,780 (which seems reasonable?) by the distributor who sells it to hospitals. It is the hospitals who then mark that up to rates as high as $12,000.

The jackpot is in this quote:

Hospitals then add their own markup to cover extra costs such as patients who don't pay their full bills.

Much like news media, somewhere along the line, hospitals became for-profit businesses, and that is ultimately a detriment to our society (IMHO).

I do understand that the use of this drug is extremely limited. There aren't that many people stung by scorpions in the US. It's basically a summer seasonal antivenin in 2 or 3 states. And it is generally not a required drug. It becomes a choice of an expensive drug, or a more lengthy (and subsequently expensive) stay in the hospital receiving treatment. Which is the better option?

Now, if you can tell me how the Mexicans make the antivenin for under $100, I'd be glad to buy the US distribution licence and sell it here for only $1000!

Something tells me the FDA wouldn't approve. Maybe that's part of the problem?

While those working in hospitals are certainly there for a multitude of reasons, one major driving factor *IS* money, and that's just the reality of it. Nobody works for free, nor should they unless they really want to. That said, I don't consider a hospital raising costs in one area to cover losses in another area to be a 'for profit' venture so much as a 'not for loss' venture. A hospital IS a business, and it has to pay the bills. Just like with any other business, those who don't pay their bills raise the costs for those who do. (Capitalism rant end) =)

On a somewhat related note, any idea if that kinda stuff is something that can legally and reliably be stocked by individuals? I tend to go a bit overboard in medical-related (heavy duty first aid?) supplies and wouldn't mind having some methods for handling scorpion stings in my bag of tricks. Then again, I'd also love to keep Epi Pens in my kit, but aside from being rather hard to get unless you can prove an existing allergy (something I can't as I have yet to be stung, chicken-egg-conundrum here) those buggers are EXPENSIVE, and don't last very long. I wanna say the shelf life is barely a year, and that doesn't necessarily take into account the temperature extremes that they would encounter in a first aid kit in sunny Arizona.

chumley wrote: It is the hospitals who then mark that up to rates as high as $12,000.

Somebody has to pay extra to cover the costs of all those other people who do not pay their hospital bills. Might as well be "your" insurance company. :tt:

Would this stuff be covered under Obamacare? :STP:

It's one thing to raise costs to cover other expenses, but it's another deal to pay over $12,000 for something that Mexicans can buy for $100 or less. That's just greed...

It's called "Stealth Tax." Hospitals and other healthcare organizations have been doing it for decades. It's the only way to stay afloat with the laws requiring the org to assess and stabilize anyone who presents in the ED, a lot of whom cannot pay...and NO, most of them are NOT illegal aliens; the vast majority are whiskey-tango Americans or homeless...

EMTALA Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act and HIPPA are some of the laws you speak of. They make it very hard for hospitals and other health care facilities to make decisions in the best interests of patients. In my former career we got called to a non trauma center hospital to rescue a patient who had jumped out his window in an attempt to commit suicide. He landed on a lower roof 4 stories down. We stabilized him took him off the roof and took him to a trauma center where he had a chance. However since the patient was on that hospitals property and not the trauma center they Feds fined that hospital 100K if I remember correctly for violating the EMTALA law by not providing treatment to him on site. If they had followed the law the man surly would have died. I can tell many more stories like this. We are a regulation nation and the unintended consequences of many of the laws is rampant.