Aimee Patton

A pleasantly eccentric take on politics

Dear Sen. Denning,

 

I read this week that you were the genius behind proposing that Hepatitis C patients who are on Kansas Medicaid  either follow the treatment plan to a Capital T for TREATMENT or get CUT OFF from Medicaid.

 

“If we have patients that are abusing an $80,000 drug, then there have to be consequences,” Denning said, contending that money could be used to treat children instead.

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article52156825.html

 

One might read into this like it’s just another example of Kansas lawmakers attacking the poor in our state.  First it was the welfare bill that required recipients to only be able to take out $25 at a time from an ATM and now it’s this recommendation that says that if you drink alcohol while being treated for Hepatitis C you are cut off from treatment.  How could people possible read into this as another anti-poor person measure in Kansas?

 

I agree that some tough love ALWAYS makes perfect sense.  I’m sure it must be so frustrating when you speak to patients on a daily basis who don’t follow their treatment plans.

 

Wait – you aren’t a doctor?  Well this is awkward. My bad.

 

Well, I’m sure as a patient, you and your fellow male lawmakers in Topeka, ALWAYS follow the Viagra warning label not to mix alcohol with your boner bills.  And if you can do it – EVERYONE can do it!

 

Forget addressing addiction issues or giving people second chances.  It’s our way or the Kansas highways!  (Feel free to use that as the tag line when you roll this whole thing out.)

 

Here’s the weird thing Sen. Denning – I found this Medicaid Drug Rebate Notice from the Department of Health and Human Services dated November 5th that talks all about what you just recommended in Kansas.  It addresses the high cost of Hepatitis C medication and how the DHH is working with states to negotiate lower prices.  It also has this section about denying access to medication for patients based on alcohol use:

 

 

“Certain states are also requiring a period of abstinence from drug and alcohol abuse as a condition for payment for DAA HCV drugs. In addition, several states are requiring that prescriptions for DAA HCV drugs must be prescribed by, or in consultation with specific provider types, like gastroenterologists, hepatologists, liver transplant specialists, or infectious disease specialists in order for payments to be provided for the drug. While states have the discretion to establish certain limitations on the coverage of these drugs, such as preferred drug lists and use of prior authorization processes,2 such practices must be consistent with requirements of section 1927(d) of the Act to ensure appropriate utilization. As such, the effect of such limitations should not result in the denial of access to effective, clinically appropriate, and medically necessary treatments using DAA drugs for beneficiaries with chronic HCV infections. States should, therefore, examine their drug benefits to ensure that limitations do not unreasonably restrict coverage of effective treatment using the new DAA HCV drugs.”

state-rel-172

 

In all seriousness – I’m not upset that sick Kansans need drug therapy to stay alive.  I am upset that our lawmakers are wasting Kansans taxpayer dollars on panels recommending things that were resolved in a memo dated a month prior.  How about if you leave the medical judgement to the physicians and the Department of Health and Human Services?

 

Yours for providing life saving medical care to all Kansans,

Aimee

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Facepalm – KS recommends no more Medicaid for some hep C patients

  1. Jimbo in OPKS says:

    Sounds like a fair deal. As a KS taxpayer I give you an $80,000 drug and you agree to give up drinking. If you can’t or won’t, then I won’t. What is wrong with that? Who created the problem? Me? I don’t think so.

    1. Aimee Patton says:

      Hi Jimbo – thanks for commenting. So I agree that it’s an expensive medication, but a lot of medication is expensive. People are on diabetes medication and it’s also expensive. People can do things to control diabetes. Should we also put restrictions in place to throw people off Medicaid if they don’t follow a low sugar diet? What if people are on oxygen and they smoke?

      1. William Stueve says:

        Aimee,

        I see by Jimbo’s reply that he had neither the intellectual nor argumentative capacity to adequately address your hypothetical. That’s particularly true for most of the righteously indignant. Unfortunately, too many of those types have legislative power in our state government. If they would pull their heads out of their rear ends for just a moment, they would realize that overall health care costs for most chronic diseases can easily hover near or over the $80,000 price tag of a course of oral chemotherapy for chronic Hepatitis C, which has a cure rate of about 90% if taken correctly. Alcohol intake doesn’t appear to affect this in a prima facie manner. Even if one agrees with their primitive thinking that alcohol dependence isn’t a disease, it really is neither here nor there as it relates to this issue. While nonadherence may lower the cure rate, if you look at nonadherence to recommended medical directions overall, you will find that the percentages are dreadfully low, costing the “taxpayers” thousands of dollars per year per person.

        The only reason I see for the recommendation from the committee regarding chemotherapy for Hepatitis C is their belief that people with Hepatitis C are paying penance for their sins and must suffer even if there is an effective cure. If I had a magic wand, I would wave it and make all compassionate people in Kansas shed their apathy and vote their conscience.

  2. Jimbo in OPKS says:

    Neither of those are eighty large. If I’m giving you a third of my house every year, then you have some responsibility to keep up your end. Otherwise, by your own admission, KS is not funding all of the identified needs and the more deserving get the dollars.

  3. Kansas could save a lot more money by just sending these patients to Jolly Old England for an 8-week vacation and paying the market price there. And/or send greedy drug makers and Republican Kansas lawmakers away, not to England, though. We couldn’t treat our allies like that. Just send them away. I can think of lots of places better suited for heartless, blood-thirsty opportunists such as those who are disgracing Kansas and ruining people’s lives. http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015/01/22/coverage-for-gileads-sovaldi-is-delayed-in-england-over-cost/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: