Should the government pay for prep.

[cumslutfordaddy]

I know this may sound silly considering how new and expensive it is. But I was talking to a friend about this and I find it to be a huge double standard.

My agrument is this. If the government is going to pay for a pill that allows women to be sluts without condoms it's only fair that they pay for the equivalent pill for men.

[99037]

First, in the U.S. the Government does not pay for the 'pill' for women. It does, however, require that insurance companies provide the pill for free to women. This is done to keep population controlled, not to let women be sluts. I think the Government would not pay for prep. Maybe if you contact your insurance company, they may feel that it would be a lot cheaper to pay for PReP than to pay for the meds I am currently on. To answer your question, no, I don't think the American taxpayer should pay for your slutty behavior. That's just my opinion.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

cumslutfordaddy, I think you are Canadian right? I honestly do not know what Canadian healthcare system covers. But I do agree with 99037; no system, USA, Canada, or any other first world nation is paying for citizens to be "sluts". That may, in some cases be the outcome, but certainly not the intention. National programs have a cost saving goal behind them. Economies are complex. It would take a lengthy book to more fully explore PrEP cost vs benefits for a given economic system, and even then it likely would have flaws.

I do know there are plenty of ways to get Truvada at low or no cost here in the US. Gilead has a copay program. I read here, but have not verified, that they have a program for those who cannot pay. But that would be the US program. I would encourage you to contact them to see what they might offer in Canada. Or you can continue exploring the Indian made "equivalent" discussed with you in another thread.

[nekofox]

First, in the U.S. the Government does not pay for the 'pill' for women. It does, however, require that insurance companies provide the pill for free to women. This is done to keep population controlled, not to let women be sluts. I think the Government would not pay for prep. Maybe if you contact your insurance company, they may feel that it would be a lot cheaper to pay for PReP than to pay for the meds I am currently on. To answer your question, no, I don't think the American taxpayer should pay for your slutty behavior. That's just my opinion.

Thank you for saying that since I've seen how the pill does help for women through insurance companies, NOT THE PUBLIC.

But yeah, all in all, PrEP shouldn't be paid for by tax payers since using something like that is more of a precaution in one's sexual lifestyle, NOT something that everyone needs to see and know about.

[cumslutfordaddy]

So ya considering how its being paid for population control I will cede my point.

I still find it a double standard. Woman can use condoms just as much as gay men can.

[drscorpio]

Honestly, I think effectively stopping the spread of HIV would be in the government's interest. I think that insurance should be required to cover PrEP.

But then again, I think we should have government-run healthcare, so I am hardly unbiassed on the issue.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

The raw cost of my PrEP from Walgreens is $1,471. My insurance pays all but $200. Gilead's copay program picks that up. As others have posted in related threads check with Gilead, check local ID docs, and check local STD clinics. They can help you navigate these waters... Here in Wisconsin we have ARCW (AIDS resource Center of Wisconsin). I have to believe other states have similar organizations. Check with them as well. Bottom line there are already programs. Check you local resources. Finally, the Canadian laws and health system will be quite different in USA. You need fellows in Canada to weigh in here.

[cumslutfordaddy]

I'm buying this. It's made from an Indian Company and it's the exact same thing.

http://www.unitedpharmacies.com/Tenvir-EM-Tenofovir-Disoproxil-Fumarate-Emtricitabine.html

[bearbandit]

I'm buying this. It's made from an Indian Company and it's the exact same thing.

http://www.unitedpharmacies.com/Tenvir-EM-Tenofovir-Disoproxil-Fumarate-Emtricitabine.html

Not quite: it contains the original formulation of tenofovir, not the new formulation. The new formulation (due to be released soon, if it's not already available) has a lower side effect profile and will be incorporated into existing combination drugs.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

or as I often say... "it's exactly the same only different."

[fskn]

It's time to separate assumptions and judgments from policy, let alone medical science.

In Canada, prescription drugs are not covered by the provincial health insurance plans that make up the country's "socialized medicine" system. Just as in the US, there is public drug coverage for the poor and for senior citizens. Others pay for prescriptions out of pocket, receive supplementary drug coverage from work, or purchase such coverage. Coverage for PrEP in Canada is a moot point, as PrEP remains an off-label use there.

In the US, Truvada for PrEP is FDA-approved, and private insurers must cover it under the same terms as other FDA-approved prescription drugs. If you meet the prescribing guidelines, you'll pay what you would pay under your plan for other brand-name prescriptions.

The main public health plan of concern in the US is Medicaid, which covers the poor. As Medicaid is a federal/state partnership, coverage varies by state. This is more a function of budget than of the safety and efficacy results upon which any drug's FDA approval rests. For example, in California, Medi-Cal patients are limited to an arbitrary number of prescriptions each year. Interestingly, according to prepfacts.org , New York and Florida do cover PrEP for Medicaid participants.

Now, from policy to science...

If you argue that government shouldn't pay for an effective HIV prevention regime (between 95 and 99% effective for patients who adhere daily, to wit, better than actual effectiveness rates for condoms), then you are arguing that government shouldn't pay for HIV treatment, either. After all, except for blood transfusion recipients and needlestick victims, people got HIV through "slutty behavior", right? I find that label insulting. Sex is a human behavior.

By the same logic, lung cancer victims should be left to die if they were smokers, as should sports accident victims, to say nothing of heart attack patients who were overweight.

Individual behavior has nothing to do with medical science. In the US, when there is a scientifically proven treatment, we treat people, regardless of what might have contributed to their medical problems.

Returning to the "slutty behavior" assumption, PrEP even has applications that don't have any hint of that. For example, it significantly reduces transmission risk in sero-discordant couples, and it can protect anyone from the undisclosed sexual activities of a boyfriend, partner or husband.

In a few years, when Gilead's patent on Truvada expires, when less-than-daily dosing has been studied, and when other HIV drugs have been studied for PrEP purposes, it will be much cheaper to prevent HIV via PrEP than to treat the additional infections that would result from denying access. I'm not worried about a few years of high costs in the meantime.

[Poz1956]

Can you be sure that something mail order from India really is going to be what the label says? I'd want lab tests, but I'd wonder if that would up the cost to more than the real thing.

I know there is a website that does rate an approve internet pharmacies. Maybe the one you referenced is on that list.

I guess another question is with customs let it in?

[cumslutfordaddy]

I live in a hour away from the border. Every 3 months I'm just going to bus down to Seattle to pick it up and buy American groceries, stuff that I can't buy in Canada.

[wood]

Honestly, I think effectively stopping the spread of HIV would be in the government's interest. I think that insurance should be required to cover PrEP.

But then again, I think we should have government-run healthcare, so I am hardly unbiassed on the issue.

I agree with this. The major issue with health care in the US is that its still profit driven, thus increasing costs for all. A single payer non-profit system takes that motive away.

Do I think the government should pay for PrEP? In theory yes, but I also dont think that drug companies should be charging $1200 a month for 30 pills of truvada. If it was a reasonable amount, like oh $100, more people would be able to afford it without the assistance of insurance or assistance programs.

[nekofox]

I agree with this. The major issue with health care in the US is that its still profit driven, thus increasing costs for all. A single payer non-profit system takes that motive away.

Do I think the government should pay for PrEP? In theory yes, but I also dont think that drug companies should be charging $1200 a month for 30 pills of truvada. If it was a reasonable amount, like oh $100, more people would be able to afford it without the assistance of insurance or assistance programs.

That's the one thing that would make me say yes, since we're still at that issue of being charged so much for insurance and all.