Insurance: Nah we aren't gonna cover it. And for some reason our economical opinion trumps your own doctors medical opinion.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
502 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59047 readers
6756 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is actually one case insurance companies would be ALL OVER a real fix. People with spinal injuries have tons of medical complications that cost throughout their entire life. An insurance company would definitely be interested in unloading persistent fiscal drains like that.
Don’t get me wrong, the medical insurance industry is a fucking terror, especially in the US with the degree of regulatory capture involved. In this one case though, a real cure would serve their interests at anything less than a massive cost on their part.
If that's the case, wouldn't the same logic be applied to novel cancer treatments? Last time I checked those have a tendency to evaporate mysteriously, and insurance companies weren't exactly stopping it.
Idk, just seams a little idealistic.
The only ideal that type of company has at its heart is the pursuit of profit. If they see a real cure that costs less than the long term “maintenance” care they would be all over it. If not, then not.
Novel cancer treatments aren’t a terribly good comparison in my opinion. Rarely does a single one in isolation offer a clear and permanent cure - though with any categorization that broad there are of course exceptions.
Hell, when scientists identify care that is likely enough to prevent the need of reactive treatment insurance companies often make it free to lower their overall costs - teeth cleaning and flu shots for example. That’s not altruism on their part, it’s economics.
The difference though is that this treatment would require hundreds of hours of ongoing work from medical professionals for each treatment. What they did was use single cell RNA sequencing to determine which subpopulations of cells are supposed to connect and where, before stimulating cell growth and guiding each RNA mapped subpopulation to where it's roughly supposed to go. That's one thing for anatomically complete sub-millimeter spinal cord injuries in mice, but a massive endeavor for human spinal cords.
If you've seen the bioengineered cancer treatments where researchers grow immune cells to target a single individual's tumor, the amount of specialized work that goes into that pales to what current technology would require for this sort of spinal regeneration, and that's for relatively simple small scale lesions. Multiple lesions or large scale cell death could result in attempting to selectively guide millions of microscopic axons in neat clusters for over a foot.
I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies refused to pay for cell regrowth, and instead went for implants that are comparatively much simpler to install and modify in brain-computer interfaces that skip over the damage. This is a great advancement and does open the door for recovering from spinal cord damage, but this is one of those treatments that people are going to get because they need to fill FDA trials and won't charge, or because the patient is filthy rich.
"Yeahhhhhh here's the thing, a wheelchair costs fifty dollars, while the revolutionary treatment that will give you full use back is fifty ONE dollars...
So you see, there really is only one sensible option..." -every insurance company everywhere even if the prices were literal
But but... If I can get back to work I can make the $1 whilst also getting back into the workforce and by extention the tax base providing a lifetime of benefit to the public and keep my family out of poverty..
Denied.
What I've learned this means in practical terms is, "Wow! We are really good at healing mice!"
Well that’s great news for all the mice who can afford the treatment.
Yeah this treatment is only going to benefit the top 1% of mice in the end
I wonder if Basil would be rich enough…
This is the right way to solve paralysis, not Elon-killing-monkeys.
Monkeys are the next step.
Well, probably dogs or cats first. But eventually monkeys.
"Professor: As a man enters his 18th decade, he thinks back on the mistakes he made in life. Amy: Like the heaps of the dead monkeys? Professor: Science can not move forward without heaps!"
180 years old?
Its a futurama quote
if only there were elon-killing-monkeys
I hope they eat well.
This was done by Courtines‘ Team in Switzerland not Musk.
Their comment was in relation to Neuralink being in the news about killing monkeys, recently, not attributing OP’s news to him.
I know, I’m referring to a separate story that used an implant to wirelessly transmit the signal to the spinal cord. They were killing a bunch of cats and monkeys as well for their research. But they approached this responsibly and got a working prototype that helped a patient to walk again: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65689580
