Included in Friday Links (November 10) was the title, “Would coverage for gene therapies make employer-based health insurance unaffordable?” That raises an important question: How much should employers (and employees) be required to pay for hyper-expensive therapies very few people need? A related question: should the purpose of employee health coverage be to recruit and retain workers or fund rare disease research and therapies?
Category: Cost of Healthcare
Meditation & Mindfulness: Relief from Anxiety and Stress or a New Age Pseudoscience?
If you like to slow down and clear your mind through a structured mindfulness activity every day, feel free to do so. Just don’t think it will cure your multiple myeloma.
Monday Links
- Are apprenticeships a viable alternative to higher education? If so, why does government subsidize the latter and not the former?
- The IRA bill has already stopped the development of one cancer drug and may be delaying many more.
- Why do new drugs have such bizarre names? It’s bureaucracy gone amok.
- Study: thunderstorms cause asthma attacks.
Friday Links
- Competition for primary care: Amazon is charging $9 a month for an unlimited number of virtual visits.
- Federal outlays: we spend four times as much on adults as we spend on children.
- Vaping is “turning millions of young people into addicted customers.”
- Would coverage for gene therapies make employer-based health insurance unaffordable?
- Thinner women end up with richer husbands.
- Survey: there has been a dramatic decline in public trust in scientific and medical expertise from before the covid pandemic to today.