Hacker News Reader

Comment by agentcoops | Hacker News Reader

Ignoring any other aspect of your comment, I would highly suggest you to do a bit more research on Hepatitis C before suggesting it only concerns "druggies" and those who "have sex with weirdos carrying diseases." In fact, a large portion of those currently impacted (and especially those who would now be in an acute condition where this drug would most likely be literally life-saving) contracted the disease through hospital blood transfusions before 1992 [1] when there was not a proper diagnostic test [2]. As such, it is a condition that very much cuts across the population and income levels.

[1] "Before 1992, when widespread screening of the blood supply began in the United States, Hepatitis C was also commonly spread through blood transfusions and organ transplants." - http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm

[2] Though even that might be disputable per http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/may/26/health.politi....

View on HN

That does seem like a public health concern. Normally you'd recover damages from a class action lawsuit or similar, but it sounds like it was common practice at the time so nobody was acting negligent. That's just a sad state of affairs.

Gilead - or maybe even Congress/local states in cooperation with Gilead - could get a lot of goodwill by offering the cure for free in a one-time deal to people who:

* Developed Hepatitis C before 1992.

* Had a blood transfusion that likely contributed to the illness

* Can't afford to pay for the cure otherwise. To start with, let's say that you make less than $60k/year to qualify.

* Don't have insurance that would cover it

It seems about as justifiable as when the government steps in to help after a natural disaster.

Don't have insurance that would cover it

Gilead was doing that.[1] Hell, most drug companies give free drug for patients who are either uninsured or under-insured (their insurer won't pay for it).

[1]http://www.gilead.com/responsibility/us-patient-access

That raises two questions:

* The article is about someone underinsured who went to India. Why couldn't he get free drugs from Gilead instead of needing to jump through some hoops in India?

* Wouldn't insurance companies just decline to pay for every expensive treatment? Probably customers won't want to go through prolonged legal battles fighting them for $84000 if they can get the treatment for free.

Then again, $1.3 billion in a quarter is only something like 15,500 full-price treatments. The CDC site[1] says there are 3.5 million sufferers. Maybe they expect most people not to pay, so millionaires and some insured will pay.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hcv/cfaq.htm#cFAQ21

Absolutely. Possibly millions of people were exposed to HCV through the blood supply before 1992, and many still don't know they were infected. Since HCV may take 20-30 years to show symptoms, it is a potential public health time bomb. We luckily have a tool to defuse it.

For example, essentially every hemophiliac was infected with HCV due to dependence on clotting factor, many also with an HIV co-infection. 80% develop chronic liver disease.

Those populations aside, "youthful indiscretions" or even chronic addiction are not reasons for (potential) death sentences due to lack of effective treatment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com