{"id":3616,"date":"2005-02-15T19:59:46","date_gmt":"2005-02-15T23:59:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2005\/02\/15\/sorry-pardner\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:57:58","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:57:58","slug":"sorry-pardner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2005\/02\/15\/sorry-pardner\/","title":{"rendered":"sorry, pardner . . ."},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"tiny . . . but, maybe we’re not both covered.<\/EM>  The fight over <\/FONT>Medicare covering “lifestyle drugs”<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
(A\/P, Feb. 2. 2005) is quite complicated.  See “Lifestyle drugs: <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT>Issues for Debate<\/FONT><\/A>,”<\/FONT> by Joel <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Lexchin, M.D., CMAJ<\/EM>, May 16, 2001).  Whether private insureds or taxpayers should help <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
oldtimers and Baby Boomers to extend their youth, by underwriting treatments for “ailments” <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
like male pattern baldness or erectile dysfunction is a very big financial and social issue.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Dr. Lexchin broaches many of the issues in his CMAJ <\/FONT>article<\/FONT><\/A> and states:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“If we as a society decide that lifestyle drugs <\/SUP>should be covered through the  \"aspirin\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
health care system, then other <\/SUP>treatments may not get funded or at least will <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
not get as much <\/SUP>funding as they otherwise would have. Decisions will also be <\/SUP><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
needed about who will get the drugs (since almost everyone will <\/SUP>want one or <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
more of them) and whether they will be available <\/SUP>in unlimited supply.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“. . . We need to find mechanisms whereby all elements <\/SUP>of society — government, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
industry, health care professionals, <\/SUP>patients and consumers — can participate in <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
the decisions.”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"aspirin  On Feb. 13, as the Sunday talking heads wrung their hands over this, and conservative <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Republicans said they must “revisit” the Medicare drug coverage of lifestyle drugs (despite a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Presidential veto threat for any attempts to decrease coverage),  I could not help but note — <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
speaking of lifestyle choices — that by next Valentine’s Day Medicare could be paying for two<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
[or more?] Cialis prescriptions for the aging partners in one<\/EM> household.  Can you say “unintended <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
consequences,” Mr. President? (or extended side effects<\/A>?)<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n