Australia: Osteoporosis drug subsidised for women not men, who pay more than 50 times the price

Quarkster · 2013-06-28T21:25:51+00:00

simply complies with the requirements of the National Health Act that the government can only subsidise a medicine in line with a drug company's request.

Why the fuck is that a law?

TracyMorganFreeman · 2013-06-29T00:41:28+00:00

Around one in two women aged over 50 will experience an osteoporosis-related fracture compared to one in three men aged over 60, he says.

Pensioner Robert Hadley "cannot believe" he has to pay $300 a dose for a treatment for thinning bones that costs women just $5.90.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that women should get more help being more at risk.

Women are 50% more at risk, so they should have 50% more of a subsidy, right? Well the women's subsidy is ~$294, which means the men's should be $196 by that logic.

I think it's likely the men are subsidizing the women and paying higher costs either person would be if neither are subsidized.

2013-06-28T21:42:30+00:00

the drug company which makes it has asked only that it be subsidised for women.

And our government just said "Yeah, sure!"??

The Health Department says "the current listing of Prolia is not discriminatory" but simply complies with the requirements of the National Health Act that the government can only subsidise a medicine in line with a drug company's request.

In other words: Yes.

ENTP · 2013-06-28T20:25:19+00:00

And women have significantly longer life spans, on average.

Male disposability/Female Preciousness rears its ugly head yet again.

edit: I a word

Ma99ie · 2013-06-28T21:21:59+00:00

That is freakin' outrageous. $5.90 vs. $309? There is no rational justification for that, other than having men pay for the benefits of women, which, BTW is what Obamacare is about.

iamnullnvoid · 2013-06-29T02:37:42+00:00

http://www.todaysgeriatricmedicine.com/archive/110310p6.shtml

Interestingly the FDA forced the company back in 2010 to cease selling prolia to men as it had a high risk of medical complications. (it was not safe for men) The PBS scheduling happened back in 2010 when they were banned from selling it to men. It has only recently been approved by the FDA for sale to men. Original article says that the PBS is currently reviewing the decision in line with the FDA ruling.

This doesn't sound like sexism.

Nipplestoker · 2013-06-29T04:38:17+00:00

"No, see, this is male privilege because it makes the assumption that men are more financially stable and secure than women, what with the paygap and everything... Yeah. It's still mysoggyknee."

Perpetual_dissident · 2013-06-29T03:00:47+00:00

Disgusting. No country for old men.

intensely_human · 2013-06-28T23:07:06+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Revoran · 2013-06-28T22:07:16+00:00

FYI, Australia's health care system works like this:

The government buys prescription drugs in bulk somewhat cheaply, then resells them to consumers for super-duper cheap. In some cases, a drug might only be earmarked to be cheap for a certain group (for instance if only if you have a certain disease whereas anyone else who is prescribed the drug for another reason has to pay full cost).

This costs the government several billion dollars a year even when you take into account that consumers pay a small part of the cost of drugs, but is made up for by the increased productivity (people don't die due to lack of health insurance) and stimulation to the economy (because people aren't spending all their money trying to stay alive).

Many doctors will bulk-bill (charge directly to the government), especially for low-income patients, meaning the patient pays basically nothing. This is encouraged by the government. When doctors do not bulk bill, part of the cost of the visit can be refunded to you by the government, depending on your income level etc.

Hospital care is also subsidized, although patients may have to pay some fees (typically much much less than a hospital visit in the US). In emergency situations, care is given first and payment is organized later.

Private health insurance is optional rather than a necessity. Pvt. insurance simply allows you more choice in where (private hospitals, nicer rooms) and how you are treated (more choice in drugs rather than the generic / govt. subsidized one).

This is all funded (sans the cheap drugs) by a 1% tax applied to everyone who earns more than $20,000 a year.

It's not an insurance mandate where you are forced to buy private health insurance (and insurance companies are forced to sell to you) like Obamacare / Germany's system / Israel's system.

Super_delicious · 2013-06-28T22:25:50+00:00

Does it have anything to do with the fact that thin women have a higher chance of getting osteoporosis than men?

r_rships_account · 2013-06-30T16:13:30+00:00

Australia is one of the most feminised countries in the world, especially under the recently-toppled PM, Julia Gillard.

They even funded the HPV vaccine for boys to reduce transmission to girls.

This crap comes as no real surprise.

synnndstalker · 2013-06-29T02:24:43+00:00

Why is this an issue?

Women get osteoporosis more than men do. So the smaller percentage of men who do get osteoporosis shouldn't matter as people. It's basic logic, guys.

braulio09 · 2013-06-29T08:15:48+00:00

oh, c'mon, guys. osteoporosis is mainly a post-menopausal women's condition. the amount of men that get it is statistically insignificant and of course the government can only aim at the bigger problems. It makes sense.

please don't just post any woman-targeted program to this sub. it makes us look retarded and oversensitive.

Title	Australia: Osteoporosis drug subsidised for women not men, who pay more than 50 times the price
Author	EvilPundit
Upvotes	97
Comments	60
Date	June 28, 2013 6:23 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1h9hh8/australia_osteoporosis_drug_subsidised_for_women/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/australia-osteoporosis-drug-subsidised-for-women.1169956 https://theredarchive.com/post/1169956

Comments