Kodak asks Judge to cancel retiree medical benefits

[MattKing]

There is a fundamental difference between the medical care system in the US, and the medical care available.

All of us elsewhere in the world benefit greatly from the medical care that is available in the US. The "for profit" emphasis in the US has resulted in tremendous advancements, that have spilled over to benefit much of the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to pay for a "for profit" system, unless one is quite wealthy, or unless the costs are shared between a great many people.

Various parts of the world approach the problem in a variety of different ways. Most who have a medical system have elected to share that cost publicly, at least to a certain extent - including the US (Medicare). The amount of public involvement varies greatly.

PE refers to the fact that people travel to the US to obtain medical treatment - and they do.

And many people (in particular seniors) travel from the US to Canada to do the same - because our medical system controls the price of drugs, thus making them far cheaper in many cases than in the US, even when one takes into account that those people need to pay the (much smaller) charge levied by Canadian doctors to issue the necessary prescription.

And Mexico has a thriving industry providing medical and dental services to both US and Canadian patients, because prices are great.

When the US auto industry nearly collapsed, one of the differences that was highlighted between Canadian and US manufactured autos was the huge cost advantage enjoyed by the Canadian plants because of the lower medical costs borne by the employers.

My father is a Kodak Canada retiree. His pension benefits appear to be secure and fully funded. The most recent assessment (2010?) by the department in the Ontario government that monitors private pension funds based in that province indicates that the pension fund for existing and recently retired employees is at least 98% fully funded. The medical benefits are much less expensive here in Canada, and government funded beyond a certain deductible. The biggest concern is dental benefits. It is not at all clear whether there is any risk to those medical and dental benefits, because Kodak Canada is not part of the bankruptcy, save and except it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastman Kodak.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In my posts, I am merely comparing, on a level playing ground if it were, medical treatment without any concern about who pays what. On that basis, the US still leads. If it did not, then why do so many people come here for treatment. Before you jump in to answer, look at past threads on this and the comments.

PE

 

[RattyMouse]

.

And many people (in particular seniors) travel from the US to Canada to do the same - because our medical system controls the price of drugs, thus making them far cheaper in many cases than in the US, even when one takes into account that those people need to pay the (much smaller) charge levied by Canadian doctors to issue the necessary prescription.

That is incorrect. It is CANADA that controls the price of drugs, not allowing them for sale unless Canada is allowed to set the price. This price is of course BELOW market costs. Were everyone to do what Canada does, drug design would suffer dramatically.

 

[MattKing]

That is incorrect. It is CANADA that controls the price of drugs, not allowing them for sale unless Canada is allowed to set the price. This price is of course BELOW market costs. Were everyone to do what Canada does, drug design would suffer dramatically.

Depends on what you define as market cost.

Pharmaceutical companies seem quite willing to sell into the Canadian market. They are also very happy to partner with Canadian universities in research.

Canada also controls distribution costs - pharmacists here are required to sell drugs at cost, save and except a flat dispensing fee that is subject to market pressures.

If Pharmaceutical companies made the same profits worldwide that they make in the US, they wouldn't be just profitable, they would be insanely profitable.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

In my posts, I am merely comparing, on a level playing ground if it were, medical treatment without any concern about who pays what. On that basis, the US still leads. If it did not, then why do so many people come here for treatment. Before you jump in to answer, look at past threads on this and the comments.

PE

Sure, you can make that kind of comparison. Just subtract—or ignore—all of the negatives until only positives remain. Anyone can do that. But it's a specious claim. A meaningless data point. The observation carries no relevance in the real world. It cannot be applied to the true reality of the health care crisis in this country with any expectation that a greater level of insight or understanding will be forthcoming. We can't do anything with it.

When I finally left through the emergency room eight hours after my wife's arrival I was saddened to see, still patiently sitting in the same chair in the admitting waiting room, the same single mother (no ring, I looked) holding her young daughter with a bandaged head showing some minor bleeding. Along with the thirty or so others also still waiting, presumably all without insurance. Most just staring blankly ahead. Eight hours later. I'm not making that up.

I didn't have the heart to stop and tell her that she should be thankful for the level playing field that allowed her injured daughter to be treated by the best medical system in the world.

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

How could a broken arm cost substantially more than emergency surgery and a delivered baby?? My wife was on the operating table less than 30 minutes after me rushing her to the ER. Our baby was delivered immediately and several surgeons did exploratory surgery to try to find out what was causing her such massive pain. Her entire abdomen was examined by the surgeons.

She had several weeks of recovery care due to the extensive nature of the surgery done on her.

Well, I still have all of the paperwork. And my wallet is still $4,000 lighter...

Ken

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...It is CANADA that controls the price of drugs, not allowing them for sale unless Canada is allowed to set the price. This price is of course BELOW market costs...

Bold added by me. That is incorrect. Canada's permitted prices for drugs are below US market prices, not below what the pharmaceutical industry's costs of production and distribution are. If your statement were correct, there would be no prescription drugs for sale in Canada.

...Were everyone to do what Canada does, drug design would suffer dramatically.

Such is the fiction / scare tactic promulgated by big pharma. Also, I'm not sure that, as a whole, the country has seen much benefit from drugs developed with huge profit potential in mind. Unless one thinks Viagra is of great value to society.

Overall, in my opinion, we'd be much better off with R&D for medications to attack disease being funded by the government. Then, production would be handed off (at no licensing cost if they agree to make the drug for at least a certain period of time) to manufacturing firms that produce generics. Of course, I thought the Affordable Care Act was an anemic half measure, with single-payer medical insurance being a much better solution.

 

[RattyMouse]

Bold added by me. That is incorrect. Canada's permitted prices for drugs are below US market prices, not below what the pharmaceutical industry's costs of production and distribution are. If your statement were correct, there would be no prescription drugs for sale in Canada.

Such is the fiction / scare tactic promulgated by big pharma. Also, I'm not sure that, as a whole, the country has seen much benefit from drugs developed with huge profit potential in mind. Unless one thinks Viagra is of great value to society.

Overall, in my opinion, we'd be much better off with R&D for medications to attack disease being funded by the government. Then, production would be handed off (at no licensing cost if they agree to make the drug for at least a certain period of time) to manufacturing firms that produce generics. Of course, I thought the Affordable Care Act was an anemic half measure, with single-payer medical insurance being a much better solution.

First off, if you were unable to have sex, you'd be damn grateful for Viagra. You show incredible insensitivity towards people who suffer from that condition.

Second of all, countries like Canada drive up US prices because they pay lower costs. That's a fact. Few industries are as risk intensive as drug design. For every drug that reaches commericalized status, 1,000 or more fail. The amount of money risked to produce a working drug that cures or mitigates a disease is enormous. Such risk should be rewarded no? Otherwise who would risk such money?

The average drug design chemist see ONE of his drugs reach commercialization during his entire CAREER. I'm not in drug design, but I am a chemist with several colleagues in that industry. Close to 20 years of cancer research and he has yet to get a drug into the market. 20 years of work. I work in Industrial lubricants for manufacturing. I get 10-15 products into the market per year.

Further, the amount of equipment needed to do drug design is enormous. A 50,000 dollar GC is a baby's toy compared to NMR spectrometers, X-Ray crystallography etc, that runs into the hundreds of thousands or millions. Very few PHD's work i my industry. Drug companies have PHD's coming out of the wood work. They get the highest salary.

Finally, drug companies over the past several years are laying off THOUSANDS of research chemists all over America. My friend over at (what used to be Abbott) is hanging on for his life right now. 20 years in cancer research and he has told me that he expects to be laid off at any moment now, the pressure on pharmaceutical companies is that intense now. He said if that comes to pass, his days of medicinal chemistry are over. There is no hope to get a job anywhere else in that field.

I always wanted to be in drug research and cursed that I never got into that field. But after seeing what goes on in there, I am grateful to have escaped that pressure filled pot.

 

[RattyMouse]

One other thing Sal. At my former company, I worked next to a chemist, a lady who suffered from a very rare form of gastrointestinal cancer. This cancer is completely untreatable by chemotherapy or radiation. ONE year before she got this cancer, it would have been a death sentence. Her great luck was that GLEEVIK (not sure if I am spelling that right) came on the market before she developed this cancer. This drug keeps her alive, as long as she takes it. It took decades to develop a drug like this and the costs of that R & D must be recovered. The drug is amazingly expensive. I cant remember the price she told me, over $10,000 a month I'm sure. But it has kept her alive over 5 years. She got to see her kids graduate from college thanks to that drug.

You can be damn sure that the people who funded that research did so for a return. NIH funded work pays for some drug design work but never in its entirety. Private money must be used.

It is incredibly ignorant to say "I'm not sure that, as a whole, the country has seen much benefit from drugs developed with huge profit potential in mind."

Amazingly ignorant.

 

[MattKing]

It is true that in a purely profit based pharmaceutical research environment, one needs a whole bunch of profits to develop pharmaceuticals.

The question is, is that the best environment for the purpose? It has had great successes, but I wonder how many other wonderful drugs and other treatments might have been developed if the market for them wasn't such an important determinator.

And I wonder if the costs of developing drugs might be much lower if there wasn't so much potential profit to be made.

 

[RattyMouse]

It is true that in a purely profit based pharmaceutical research environment, one needs a whole bunch of profits to develop pharmaceuticals.

The question is, is that the best environment for the purpose? It has had great successes, but I wonder how many other wonderful drugs and other treatments might have been developed if the market for them wasn't such an important determinator.

And I wonder if the costs of developing drugs might be much lower if there wasn't so much potential profit to be made.

Drug costs arent so high because of profits, it is because of costs. How much profit does a drug company make over their revenue? 10%? 12%? If drug companies are so damn profitable, why are they laying off hundreds of research chemists year after year?

No the problem is because of COSTS. From wikipedia: Drug companies are like other companies in that they manufacture products that must be sold for a profit in order for the company to survive and grow. They are different from some companies because the drug business is very risky. For instance, only one out of every ten thousand discovered compounds actually becomes an approved drug for sale. Much expense is incurred in the early phases of development of compounds that will not become approved drugs.[6] In addition, it takes about 7 to 10 years and only 3 out of every 20 approved drugs bring in sufficient revenue to cover their developmental costs, and only 1 out of every 3 approved drugs generates enough money to cover the development costs of previous failures. This means that for a drug company to survive, it needs to discover a blockbuster (billion-dollar drug) every few years.[6]


How do you fund that kind of risk?

 

[Steve Smith]

Just out of interest, on average, what are the monthly insurance premiums paid by an employee on around national average wage in the US?


Steve.

 

[BradS]

Just out of interest, on average, what are the monthly insurance premiums paid by an employee on around national average wage in the US?


Steve.

Generally, in the US, if you have health insurance, your employer pays for most of it. Individuals could not afford it on their own, so, as a consequence, if your employer does not provide health insurance, generally, you are un-insured.

 

[PKM-25]

It is incredibly ignorant to say "I'm not sure that, as a whole, the country has seen much benefit from drugs developed with huge profit potential in mind."

Amazingly ignorant.

Oh goody, Fujimouse has yet another thread to his credit that bears resemblance to a soap box. Maybe it is time for me to sign out again for a few months....

 

[RattyMouse]

Oh goody, Fujimouse has yet another thread to his credit that bears resemblance to a soap box. Maybe it is time for me to sign out again for a few months....

Really? Name calling? Is that what you have to resort to?

 

[Steve Smith]

Generally, in the US, if you have health insurance, your employer pays for most of it. Individuals could not afford it on their own, so, as a consequence, if your employer does not provide health insurance, generally, you are un-insured.

Thanks. Over here, an averagely paid employee will pay about £170 a month tax called National Insurance. This pays for healthcare, state pension and a few other benefits.

The nice thing about it is that you are still fully covered even if you are not working. e.g. below working age, unemployed (or unable to work) or retired and there are no exemptions for pre-existing conditions which I hear about in the US system.

Our system does have its faults, mostly due to bureaucracy, but we wouldn't want to be without it. From what I can tell, the German system is similar to ours but with less bureaucracy and shorter (if any) waiting times. I think the German system is what we would like ours to be.


Steve.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

First off, if you were unable to have sex, you'd be damn grateful for Viagra. You show incredible insensitivity towards people who suffer from that condition...

I have virtually no concern for those with that "condition." In most such cases, proper preventive care (and avoidance of smoking, obesity, etc.) would have precluded underlying medical conditions that frequently cause impotence. Even if they didn't, homo sapiens will more than survive absent more babies fathered by Viagra's typical customers. The population is headed toward disaster even without them.

Note that I take particular glee in using the proper term (impotence) rather than the pharmaceutical industry's made-up marketing phrase (erectile disfunction).

Second of all, countries like Canada drive up US prices because they pay lower costs...

You continue to confuse the terms price and cost. They have different definitions.

...Few industries are as risk intensive as drug design. For every drug that reaches commericalized status, 1,000 or more fail. The amount of money risked to produce a working drug that cures or mitigates a disease is enormous. Such risk should be rewarded no? Otherwise who would risk such money?...

As posted previously, in my opinion funding (perhaps even conduct) of research toward drugs that cure or mitigate disease ought come from everyone, i.e. the US government. Then, the investors (US taxpayers) would be rewarded for risking that money by having resulting working drugs widely available at "generic" prices.

I'd be happy to see research into and patent-protected production of drugs (like Viagra) that don't save lives or treat serious conditions remain in the private sector. I'd also like to see changes made to regulations so medical insurance is required not to pay for them.

The average drug design chemist see ONE of his drugs reach commercialization during his entire CAREER. I'm not in drug design, but I am a chemist with several colleagues in that industry. Close to 20 years of cancer research and he has yet to get a drug into the market. 20 years of work...Further, the amount of equipment needed to do drug design is enormous. A 50,000 dollar GC is a baby's toy compared to NMR spectrometers, X-Ray crystallography etc, that runs into the hundreds of thousands or millions...Drug companies have PHD's coming out of the wood work. They get the highest salary...

All these observations support my position that such research ought be conducted by the US government, not a private, for-profit industry. No other approach can bring the required level of resources to bear with a greater potential to ensure that any resulting products will be available to the patients who need them.

...Finally, drug companies over the past several years are laying off THOUSANDS of research chemists all over America. My friend over at (what used to be Abbott) is hanging on for his life right now. 20 years in cancer research and he has told me that he expects to be laid off at any moment now, the pressure on pharmaceutical companies is that intense now. He said if that comes to pass, his days of medicinal chemistry are over. There is no hope to get a job anywhere else in that field...

Corporate greed does not respect PhD-level educations or potential good that those employees' work can do for patients. It's emblematic of another huge deficiency in our society, namely how Wall Street controls the government rather than vice versa. Many industries reaping huge profits, in an attempt to "make the numbers look better," are laying off people so Wall Street will be happy. The same obnoxious executive management and board of directors behavior so extensively complained about in other Kodak threads on APUG can be found in the large corporations of every industry. Big pharma is no exception.

...At my former company, I worked next to a chemist, a lady who suffered from a very rare form of gastrointestinal cancer. This cancer is completely untreatable by chemotherapy or radiation. ONE year before she got this cancer, it would have been a death sentence. Her great luck was that GLEEVIK (not sure if I am spelling that right) came on the market before she developed this cancer. This drug keeps her alive, as long as she takes it. It took decades to develop a drug like this and the costs of that R & D must be recovered. The drug is amazingly expensive. I cant remember the price she told me, over $10,000 a month I'm sure. But it has kept her alive over 5 years. She got to see her kids graduate from college thanks to that drug...

Such anecdotes are frequently related to justify the industry's cost structure. They play on emotions and, while undoubtedly true, highlight how "very rare" people who realize these benefits are.

...You can be damn sure that the people who funded that research did so for a return. NIH funded work pays for some drug design work but never in its entirety. Private money must be used...

There is no reason why private money must be used. My comments have addressed what I believe the US government should do, not what is currently does.

...It is incredibly ignorant to say "I'm not sure that, as a whole, the country has seen much benefit from drugs developed with huge profit potential in mind."...

You've again made my point. The "very rare" form of cancer is, by definition, one that affects only a small number of people. The country as a whole includes tens of millions of people who would benefit greatly be having access to less exotic drugs that are now out of reach.

This comes down to a question of moral philosophy. Should a citizenry permit private, profit-driven corporations to control the situation and direct their efforts toward the bottom line, or step in and ensure that the largest number of people achieve excellent outcomes? It's not fun making that choice; your chemist friend might not have survived but perhaps thousands of others could have. Research into creating antibiotics to deal with drug-resistant mutant strains has been falling behind because the financial rewards aren't as great. Millions of people will be affected. Reality sucks, but it's real.

...Amazingly ignorant.

As usual, ad hominem attacks degrade only the attacker.

 

[Pioneer]

Generally, in the US, if you have health insurance, your employer pays for most of it. Individuals could not afford it on their own, so, as a consequence, if your employer does not provide health insurance, generally, you are un-insured.

Some do pick up their own. Mine costs about $1,000 per month for medical only. It does differ from State to State though so my own may not be totally representative.

 

[brianmquinn]

Oh goody, Fujimouse has yet another thread to his credit that bears resemblance to a soap box. Maybe it is time for me to sign out again for a few months....

I agree. He should stay on the subject matter related to APUG.

Also he said, " I work in Industrial lubricants for manufacturing. I get 10-15 products into the market per year."
That is a pretty impossible output for someone who just a few days ago claimed they make a living from shooting film.

 

[Steve Smith]

Mine costs about $1,000 per month for medical only.

Is that considered good value for money? It seems ridiculously high to me. It's more than my mortgage!


Steve.

 

[Pioneer]

Actually in my State it is a middle of the road price. It also covers myself and my wife.

Interestingly the price was lower until Obama Care was passed. Because of the requirement to insure everyone without consideration of previous medical conditions the insurance companies immediately raised their premiums. So while my premium was in the $600 per month range prior to the passing of the Health Care Act, within 4 months of it passing my insurance premium climbed to its current price. So, though it appears that we are heading toward the brave new world of universal health care it will actually cost most young people less to pay the fine and go without than to actually pay the premium for the medical coverage.

But, I still get to pay the higher premiums anyway.

 

[pbromaghin]

The last time I had to pay my own way, it was >$800/mo for my wife and me. This was a high-end policy with hardly any out of pocket expense. Just last year I was helping my 25-year old find insurance and a catastrophic policy with high deductibles was $40-150/mo. Every little benefit stepped up from the bottom added a few dollars to the cost. Insurance that will save a young, reasonably healthy person from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness is really very cheap. But if you want a Cadillac policy, you will pay a Cadillac price.

And when I was paying that high price, I was working on a contract at a big biotech drug company. It was very educational. The costs of developing a new drug are truly staggering.

Imagine an ultimate nerd splices a gene from a turnip into an amoeba. He thinks it might make the amoeba shit some chemical that will cure cancer. Grow those amoebas in a test tube. Then in a jar. Then in a jug. Finally in a 5,000 gallon tank. Then some other geniuses have to figure out how to filter a half-pint of bug shit out of that 5,000 gallon tank. Do this several times until you have enough to see if it really works. Have some other geniuses figure out just how you will know if it works or not. Wait 10 years. Did it work? Repeat.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A lot of just plain ignorance out there how the system works, plus tons of hot air now that it's a
hotbutton election issue. I'll stay out of that because it's obviously political in nature. But I can
give a good idea of why drugs cost what they do - R&D, certification, and liability. My office is right
across the tracks from some of the biggest pharmaceutical outfits in the world. This is the epicenter.
The average drug takes 500 million to develop, and then if something goes wrong, it can cost billions
in lawsuits. So it takes a LOT of profit to turn a buck in the long haul. And you'd be absolutely amazed at the level of quality control (at least in this neigborhood). My wife worked for several years
in quality control in a designer prototyping lab, and the trade secret and lab equip investment was
staggering. Her office was literally inside a vault, and the vials of serum were worth on the avg
about $40,000 per ten grams. Take that to the next level, say, mass production at someplace like
Bayer, and a 5-gallon bucket is worth about 5 million at production level. A single hair or bit of dust
in that, and it would all get thrown out! The floors are stainless steel and steam cleaned before every batch. So it get pretty involved.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Another quality-control anecdote, just for you folks who complain about having to control dust on film or in a darkroom: In the Pharmaceutical plant next door, when they suit up for production in the
cleanroom, nobody can enter or exit until the end of the entire run, even if it takes 12 hrs - no batrhroom or lunch breaks, or the entire batch gets discarded and they clean the lab from scratch.
Each factory floors has huge HEPA dust hoods to scrub the air. Before production, the quality guys
come in, put on a brand new pair of white gloves and run their finger on the inside rim of the dust
hood. If the glove shows any stain,dirt, or dust at all, you're fired.

 

[pbromaghin]

No, you didn't. But those 50+ million uninsured really are the 800-pound silent gorilla in the room, aren't they?

Ken

This is a very tricky number that the Congressional Budget Office says grossly misstates the situation. We have to be very careful to understand what it really is.

First, it is not 50 million. It is closer to 46 million.

2nd, it is not always the same people being uninsured. The CBO says that 45 percent of those uninsured at any point in time will be insured within four months.

3rd, not all of the uninsured need a new government program. The Urban Institute found that 25 percent of the uninsured already qualify for existing government health insurance programs. Blue Cross Blue Shield reports similar numbers.

4th, more than 17 million of the uninsured make at least $50,000 per year (the median household income of $50,233) – 8.4 million make $50,000 to $74,999 per year and 9.1 million make $75,000 or higher. Why are they uninsured? I don't know.

5th, nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.” Whether or not you and I have a responsibility to these people can be debated.

So the Gorilla is more like 300 lbs. That's still a pretty big gorilla.

I work for the largest Catholic health care system in the US. I am not taking sides in the debate, but only pointing out that in having the debate, we need to be much more careful with the numbers we throw around. When an average citizen uses this number, it's simply because they are ill-informed. But any politician or person who is knowledgeable of the health care industry and uses this number, is a damned liar.