- advertisement -

Front-page NY times article today on cost of T1

Discussion in 'Parents of Children with Type 1' started by twintype1s, Apr 6, 2014.

  1. twintype1s

    twintype1s Approved members

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    99
  2. virgo39

    virgo39 Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,691
    Not sure I agree...the reference to a CGM sensor as first a "dubious improvement" and then as potentially life saving for "some" with "unstable diabetes" suggests to me that the author still doesn't really get it. And the correction at the end was ... interesting.

    I do agree that the information on rising costs was kind of scary.
     
  3. Nancy in VA

    Nancy in VA Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    7,308
    I don't think the article did us any favors either. They talked about the CGMS like it was the artificial pancreas, with suspension, and definitely talked about technology in a negative way. It actually said the pump was too complicated for a child to operate, so most do shots. Emma had been operating her pump for years now - it's actually very simple. While costs are something we all want to keep manageable, I didn't think the "doomsday tone" of this article was the message we want the community thinking about us. But yes, they described the difference between type 1 and 2 accurately, but used combined costs of type 1 and 2 when it suited them, and other times, just talked about type 1
     
  4. missmakaliasmomma

    missmakaliasmomma Approved members

    Joined:
    May 31, 2013
    Messages:
    846
    I actually did not get offended with the article. I think it brought up very valid points about problems with insurance, pharmaceutical costs rising, etc. Also, I don't expect someone who does not have diabetes, to write an article like one of us parents would. They write like they don't fully understand because I don't think 99% Of people fully understand it until you of your child has to deal with it.
     
  5. mmc51264

    mmc51264 Approved members

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    298
    I did not like the fact that they call the pumps/CGM as "accouterments" like they are accessories not necessities. The stuff is too expensive. We just went through a change where now instead of getting out supplies from Animas directly, we have to go through a supply company. How does adding a middleman SAVE money? We have great insurance, we are extremely lucky, but it is getting like dental insurance-can't afford the necessities regardless. :(
     
  6. caspi

    caspi Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,134
    In case you missed it..... Here's the response from JDRF's Jeffrey Brewer:

    "JDRF Response re: April 5, 2014 NYT Article
    “Even Small Medical Advances Can Mean Big Jumps in Bills”

    "On behalf of everyone affected by type 1 diabetes (T1D), JDRF is outraged by the recent article in the New York Time trivializing the benefit of medical advances for people with T1D. Rather than being “high priced gadgets and disposable accouterments” as the article defines them, these lifesaving advances are indeed just that – life saving for individuals with T1D. A recent study documented such advances helped add roughly 15 years of life for those diagnosed with T1D. The New York Times story suggests that some medical advances for T1D that could mean a longer life and better health for some people with T1D are not worth the cost – a premise JDRF completely rejects. It further confuses the issue by including growing combined diabetes healthcare costs and tying these growing costs to inappropriate use of medical advances in type 2 diabetes. JDRF supports continued innovation of new medical advances to further improve the lives of people with T1D and to ultimately cure this disease. Such step-wise advances, big and small, are how we will ultimately create a world without T1D. We need a health care policy that supports innovative research on new advances for people with T1D and one that makes these advances available to every person who needs them."
     
  7. MomofSweetOne

    MomofSweetOne Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,743
    Thank you for posting this. I cringed as I read the article because of how it made the technology sound frivolous. Diabetes has changed so much since the discovery of insulin, and I look forward to things continuing to improve. This week I spoke with a man diagnosed in 1967. He told me back then, blood labs results took three days for results. We all know how meaningless a three day (or sometimes even 30 minute old) BG value is. I am thankful for the technology that allows our kids to have both tighter control and yet be safer than before, resulting in lower risks of complications and the high costs, financially, emotionally, and physically, of those.
     
  8. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    I think you are letting them off easy. I do agree with you that the average lay person, who does not have a direct connection with T1, probably does not understand what we go through on a daily (and nightly) basis. However, when you are writing for a large publication like the NYT, you have a responsibility to research your subject and present a fact based, informed article. That is their job. And in this case they failed on many levels, which leads to more misinformation in the general public about T1, which we do not need.
     
  9. jilmarie

    jilmarie Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Messages:
    773
    I agree. I didn't mind the article at all. I thought it was fairly accurate - much better in regards to differentiating between type 1 and type 2 than most articles. I think the cost arguments are very valid. As someone with diabetes who is also a physician I'm appalled by the cost of health care and the "have" vs "have not" situation that exists currently. I guess I agree that very small advances are inappropriately inflating the cost of devices. I meet a lot of patients who don't have access to the kind of technology that is commonplace on this board.
     
  10. mmgirls

    mmgirls Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2008
    Messages:
    6,030
    Yes the disparity in care, care choices is down right disheartening. It is heart breaking to sing the wonders of a pump/cgm and then realize that it truly may not be a possibility to a family.
    I often wonder where we would be today if we never had the opportunity to pump 6 months in or if I would have never found this place three years later. If I could not afford an internet connection I doubt that I would be the "D" parent that I am today, irrelevant of insurance/service coverage. I make the statement specifically about the internet connection because if we could not pump for whatever reason, I think that just simply become privy to the varied ways that people understand diabetes care online makes me a better "D" parent.

    I am a simple person, I don't read the paper, I stay away from news coverage, I have only a few close friends; and if it were not for this forum I would be in the dark about what is out there in regards to "diabetes", because I sure as heck don't get information from my 3-4 month appointments with the endo.

    (jillmarie - please, please, spread the word and narrow that gap.)
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice