Expensive prescription drugs may not be always better
 

I thought that this was interesting.

Pricier meds mean worse side effects, thanks to ‘nocebo’ effect | Science | AAAS

I've been saying this for a long time and one situation comes to mind is my sister who left us late last year. Her MS specialists had her taking $100K's in drugs for years "for slowing down the progression" and NEVER did any of them suggest LDN (very inexpensive med) and I brought it up to her but she didn't hear it.

I've been working with my own prevention medicine as best I can learn as I research so much for my own health and do all I can to avoid the drugs.

Caroline, $US100K sounds very expensive for prescription drugs to me.

Here most prescription drugs are covered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The PBS is part of Medicare (not the same as the US system with the same name). Medicare applies to all citizens and permanent residents - it is similar to the NHS in the UK.

Generally, a drug which is on the PBS list costs no more than about $A40 per prescription (less if you are a pensioner).

There were times when she would tell me about a new MS drug and it cost like $25K and the fights with insurance companies would go on and on.

Over the lifetime of her disease, $100'sK was dished out to pharma drugs. $100K is probably low in the 30 some yrs of all drugs she was prescribed. Remember this is the U.S. J

Caroline, here is a very recent example of how the PBS works.

A drug which is highly effective in treating otherwise refractory forms of leukaemia and lymphoma used to cost $A187K per script.

It is now on the PBS list and costs $A38.80 per script ($A6.30 for pensioners).

$187, to $6.3: Turnbull government subsidy gives hope to cancer sufferers

Yes, but Kiwi--
 

--you're in Australia, a place in which a sane attitude about health care and pharmaceuticals prevails. :p