The point it seems like they are trying to make (and I have only read up till the paywall) is that there are multiple forms of insulin, and newer versions basically work better. Many people are getting the newer, better drugs, but having to ration them because of how expensive they are. If plain, old insulin becomes cheap enough such that people switch to it (critically, without some extra effort by our healthcare system), a percentage of people will end up dying. Managing diabetes is all about keeping blood glucose stable, and that is asier to do with the modern stuff.
They retitled the article to “Making Insulin Cheaper Isn’t Enough”, which i think is a much better headline.
And again, I could only read up till the paywall, so i could be giving them too much credit.
I didn’t have a paywall for some reason, so here’s the gist of it:
Insulin is only the first choice for type 1 diabetes. For type 2, there are alternatives (not just variants of insulin, but actually different drugs) with fewer side effects, and which are more effective against the serious dangers like heart attacks. But when insulin gets much cheaper, those patients (i.e. the majority of diabetes patients) could end up using insulin and run a higher risk of those more deadly symptoms. Towards the end, the article even says: “In place of capping the out-of-pocket cost of just insulin, lawmakers should cap the out-of-pocket cost of all diabetes medications.”
Someone posted a link to the full text. Looks like their main point is that for most people with diabetes (who have type 2), insulin of any form isn’t the best first line treatment, things like glp-1 receptor agonists (e.g., ozempic) work way better, but since it’s not “insulin” it’s not covered.
I’m guessing the editors of the Atlantic gave it the original bad headline, cause it seems like the author is genuine.
“Making Insulin Cheaper Isn’t Enough” sounds like a good headline on its own, but with the context of the original headline and tagline, it sure sounds like the rest of the article is going to be making point for not making insulin cheaper at all.
Maybe there is a real call to action buried past the paywall, but I don’t see it, and therefore I can only assume that what I can see without paying is the message they want to push.
Someone posted a link to the full text. Looks like their main point is that for most people with diabetes (who have type 2), insulin of any form isn’t the best first line treatment, things like glp-1 receptor agonists (e.g., ozempic) work way better, but since it’s not “insulin” it’s not covered.
I’m guessing the editors of the Atlantic gave it the original bad headline, cause it seems like the author is genuine.
Still seems like an odd article choice since type 1 and 2 diabetes are totally separate diseases with different causes and treatments. So of course reducing insulin prices won’t do anything to help type 2 diabetics.
Except if diabetics had cheap safe access to insulin none of them would die…………
The point it seems like they are trying to make (and I have only read up till the paywall) is that there are multiple forms of insulin, and newer versions basically work better. Many people are getting the newer, better drugs, but having to ration them because of how expensive they are. If plain, old insulin becomes cheap enough such that people switch to it (critically, without some extra effort by our healthcare system), a percentage of people will end up dying. Managing diabetes is all about keeping blood glucose stable, and that is asier to do with the modern stuff.
They retitled the article to “Making Insulin Cheaper Isn’t Enough”, which i think is a much better headline.
And again, I could only read up till the paywall, so i could be giving them too much credit.
I didn’t have a paywall for some reason, so here’s the gist of it:
Insulin is only the first choice for type 1 diabetes. For type 2, there are alternatives (not just variants of insulin, but actually different drugs) with fewer side effects, and which are more effective against the serious dangers like heart attacks. But when insulin gets much cheaper, those patients (i.e. the majority of diabetes patients) could end up using insulin and run a higher risk of those more deadly symptoms. Towards the end, the article even says: “In place of capping the out-of-pocket cost of just insulin, lawmakers should cap the out-of-pocket cost of all diabetes medications.”
Maybe that would motivate pharmaceutical companies to work on treatments that actually cure diabetes?
Seems like are breakthrough treatments we are getting over recent years is just to manage the sickness.
Funny how pharmaceutical’s motivation to cure doesn’t exist.
The fact they changed the headline is itself praiseworthy, but the fact it was click bait and sensationalist to begin counters it.
The point about making the older stuff cheaper is something that isn’t mentioned as much as it should be in these debates.
Ultimately even if the older stuff is worse and requires more attention and monitoring (less convenient), it is still better than nothing.
Someone posted a link to the full text. Looks like their main point is that for most people with diabetes (who have type 2), insulin of any form isn’t the best first line treatment, things like glp-1 receptor agonists (e.g., ozempic) work way better, but since it’s not “insulin” it’s not covered.
I’m guessing the editors of the Atlantic gave it the original bad headline, cause it seems like the author is genuine.
So the physician cares about patient wellbeing while the newspaper cares about engagement? Sounds about right
“Making Insulin Cheaper Isn’t Enough” sounds like a good headline on its own, but with the context of the original headline and tagline, it sure sounds like the rest of the article is going to be making point for not making insulin cheaper at all.
Maybe there is a real call to action buried past the paywall, but I don’t see it, and therefore I can only assume that what I can see without paying is the message they want to push.
Someone posted a link to the full text. Looks like their main point is that for most people with diabetes (who have type 2), insulin of any form isn’t the best first line treatment, things like glp-1 receptor agonists (e.g., ozempic) work way better, but since it’s not “insulin” it’s not covered.
I’m guessing the editors of the Atlantic gave it the original bad headline, cause it seems like the author is genuine.
That makes more sense, I suppose.
Still seems like an odd article choice since type 1 and 2 diabetes are totally separate diseases with different causes and treatments. So of course reducing insulin prices won’t do anything to help type 2 diabetics.
No. Idiot. Only the capitalist class can construct hypothetical scenarios.