Cost-effective vs. effective in HPV Vaccination
A friend of mine has a son. She had him vaccinated for HPV. This got me thinking, "Should I get myself vaccinated for HPV?"
TO the research!
I found out something that actually shocks me. I don't shock easily, being fairly jaded when it comes to humans being willing to sacrifice other people's health for their own profit. But this actually strikes me as going too far.
What I found was the concept of Cost Effectiveness. Basically, this means that whether a drug is given to someone is based on what the government feels society would be willing to pay to extend a given person's life by a year. If society is willing to pay more than X per year of a person's life, the treatment is cost effective. If society doesn't care about that person enough, then oh well.
The model they use estimates the "price" of the vaccinations at around $43k. For a 12 year old girl, we'll go as high as $100k, so they get it. For each year that girl ages, society values them less. At age 26, they are "worth" about $43.5k, still enough to make it worth vaccinating them. At age 27, a woman is now only "worth" $41k, so she no longer gets the vaccine.
Knee-jerk reaction: How messed up is that? We base whether or not somebody is allowed to have a life saving treatment on what we feel the person is worth? Ethics gets complicated when you combine it with capitalism.
In the case of trying to find ways to determine who gets their treatment paid for by an insurance system, especially one that is trying to work within "economic realities", I can understand where these calculations can be useful. Where I lose it is when I'm told by my doctor that, due to these calculations, I'm not allowed to have the treatment myself, even though it will make my life better, even if I'm willing to pay out of pocket for it. The FDA has confused Cost Effectiveness with Medical Effectiveness. They say that, since it is not worth it for insurance to pay for this vaccine for my age and sex, it is not medically sound for me to have it at all.
Grrr. Argh.
-Jody
TO the research!
I found out something that actually shocks me. I don't shock easily, being fairly jaded when it comes to humans being willing to sacrifice other people's health for their own profit. But this actually strikes me as going too far.
What I found was the concept of Cost Effectiveness. Basically, this means that whether a drug is given to someone is based on what the government feels society would be willing to pay to extend a given person's life by a year. If society is willing to pay more than X per year of a person's life, the treatment is cost effective. If society doesn't care about that person enough, then oh well.
The model they use estimates the "price" of the vaccinations at around $43k. For a 12 year old girl, we'll go as high as $100k, so they get it. For each year that girl ages, society values them less. At age 26, they are "worth" about $43.5k, still enough to make it worth vaccinating them. At age 27, a woman is now only "worth" $41k, so she no longer gets the vaccine.
Knee-jerk reaction: How messed up is that? We base whether or not somebody is allowed to have a life saving treatment on what we feel the person is worth? Ethics gets complicated when you combine it with capitalism.
In the case of trying to find ways to determine who gets their treatment paid for by an insurance system, especially one that is trying to work within "economic realities", I can understand where these calculations can be useful. Where I lose it is when I'm told by my doctor that, due to these calculations, I'm not allowed to have the treatment myself, even though it will make my life better, even if I'm willing to pay out of pocket for it. The FDA has confused Cost Effectiveness with Medical Effectiveness. They say that, since it is not worth it for insurance to pay for this vaccine for my age and sex, it is not medically sound for me to have it at all.
Grrr. Argh.
-Jody