PrEP makes the UK Daily Mail

[Guest beezee]

On the back of the CDC announcement a few UK media outlets have been covering the story here, . E. G.

Pressure grows on NHS to make new HIV wonder drug available for those at risk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631219/Call-HIV-pill-gay-men-risk-infection-available-NHS.html

[NLbear]

In Holland PrEP had not yet been approved as medication. The Dutch CDC equivalent and the AIDS Foundation say Truvada is effective in 44 to 77% of the cases, and up to 90% of those who stick strictly to the daily dosis.

The problem here in NL are the hight costs of the medication and the coverage by health insurance companies. Currently those are not covered (as it is not approved yet of course). The sentiment in smaller circles is also that it would give guys a free ticket to have unsafe sex (I am excluding cases where people (m/f) would have a high risk of contracting HIV), where as they could protect themselves by using a condom. As a result there would be an increase in STDs, which also need to be treated. The insurance costs of covering for those persons would have to be carried by the whole population in NL (that's the model here, everyone pays a monthly fee to an insurance company and through that fee all other NL citizens (who also pay a fee) are covered for medical costs, sort of Obamacare). In other words: everyone would pay an increased insurance cost due to increased medial costs in the country just because some guys want to have bareback sex, although they know the risks. Then society as a whole would have to pay for it. That doesn't go down well in those circles in the know (although I think 99% of the general population has never heard of PrEP or are not aware). In general you can state that the opinion is that you can avoid contracting HIV or an STD by using a condom. If you don't want that?, then carry the consequences. Don't make society as a whole pay for your costs simply because you do not want to use condoms. Why pay a higher insurance cost (as a country and per person) for a medication for neg guys so they just can have unprotected sex?

The above info I got from going through several websites in NL on this topic. Yes, I hate condoms personally, but I can also see the POV of the opposers. In their view there is no need for a very expensive medication (which it would be in NL, up to $1200 per month if I have to believe the info) if you can protect yourself by using condoms. Why would the taxpayer have to foot your medical bill simply because you choose to have unsafe sex?. Just stating how it is here in this country, not my personal opinion. Rising healthcare costs would be a burden to every citizen in NL due to higher monthly insurance fees.

It may be different in the US or UK because of the Healthcare system.

[wood]

The above info I got from going through several websites in NL on this topic. Yes, I hate condoms personally, but I can also see the POV of the opposers. In their view there is no need for a very expensive medication (which it would be in NL, up to $1200 per month if I have to believe the info) if you can protect yourself by using condoms. Why would the taxpayer have to foot your medical bill simply because you choose to have unsafe sex?. Just stating how it is here in this country, not my personal opinion. Rising healthcare costs would be a burden to every citizen in NL due to higher monthly insurance fees.

It may be different in the US or UK because of the Healthcare system.

This makes sense to an extent. Where it stops mamking sense, is when the infection rate of inidividuals continues to climb, and then government programs have to step in anyway to help with the LIFETIME cost of HIV meds.

What I would really like to see is aggressive pricing on the the part of Gilead for truvada instead of assistance programs. the other thing they could do is allow generic truvada access into placing beyond the developing world.