The New York Times's
second editorial this morning praises the state of Texas for becoming the first state to require vaccinating girls against HPV. The new drug, Gardasil, boasts being the only drug to guard against the disease that causes cervical cancer in women. Opponents of the mandatory vaccination have nothing more against it than they do against condom distribution in schools, family planning advice, and the birth control pill: that it will promote sexual promiscuity. Of course, we all know that to be false, so there's no point in even trying to debunk that statement. As Governor Perry recently said, the HPV vaccine promotes promiscuity just as much as the Hep B vaccine promotes drug use.
I'm quite impressed that Texas was the first state to pull this off. But other states are not just sitting and doing nothing. Virginia and Colorado are both moving to mandatory vaccinations as well. As is Illinois and probably a bunch of other states as well.
While all of this is good news for the fight against cancer in general, in it's congratulatory editorial, NY Times is overlooking an important issue that is rearing it's ugly head once again: the
cost of the drug. A full round of the vaccine (3 doses over an 8-month period) costs $360. While most insurance companies are covering the vaccine, they are reimbursing only $2-$15 for each $120 dose. That leaves the doctor covering at least 85% of the full cost they pay Merck, the makers of the drug. So doctors are either not providing the vaccinations, charging their patients a surcharge, or writing prescriptions for the patients to purchase the vaccine and bring it back. All this does is pass the bloated costs of the drug onto the patients. Meanwhile, Merck is spending it's time lobbying state legislators to pass the mandatory vaccination bills and donating tens of thousands of dollars to their campaigns (see
Virgina). What about just lowering the cost of the drug?
What actual good do these laws do if the doctors can't afford to stock the drug and the patients are saddled with the high costs? Will costs naturally come down once the drug becomes mandatory? I'm not an expert in medical economics, and my gut feeling could be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
Labels: prescription drugs