Huge US medical bill

malkie76

Deleted_User wrote: »

You really do talk nonsense.

I've supported everything I've said with links to the actual science or research supporting it. Conversely you've quoted a relative, who isn't actually qualified or trained to make the statement they have. You've also completely misrepresented an article which doesn't support the claims you are making (and you got the source completely incorrect).

Deleted_User wrote: »

Doxycycline is the ibuprofen of anti-biotics.Billions of tablets have been prescribed without ill-effects

All drugs have side effects, so this statement is incorrect. I can provide a full list for Doxycycline and Ibuprofen if you are interested.

Deleted_User wrote: »

and they're perfect as a standby anti-biotic for things like chest infections when you're on holiday.

Unless you have an underlying respiratory medical condition (such as COPD), then your 'chest infection' is most likely viral in nature. Hence taking antibiotics is utterly pointless as they kill bacteria, not viruses. Even with an underlying respiratory medical condition you would need an appropriate bacterial diagnosis (or history of purulence) to be prescribed antibiotics after a viral infection is ruled out. In severe cases antibiotics can be prescribed immediately (typically in combination with oral corticosteroids), particularly to avoid a secondary bacterial lung infection following a primary viral infection.

This is a easy to follow, very accessible article from NICE covering what I've said above - https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG101/chapter/1-Guidance#management-of-exacerbations-of-copd
(note, an exacerbation means a chest infection)

Deleted_User wrote: »

well past their expiry date the effects on a person are exactly the same.

Not according to the study you referenced early in the thread. The study you referenced (albeit incorrectly) suggested a mean extension time of 27months past expiry date for Doxycyclin tablets (in Table 6). This is based on actual science of testing the drug after it's expiry date. Worryingly, the range from batch to batch was as low as 12months post expiry date before being considered 'off'.

Interestingly, the shelf life of capsule formulation of the same drug is considerably longer. The mean there is 50months, but again with a wide range from 37 to 66 months (see Table 2).

Remember, this work is conducted by the FDA with a vested interest in saving money, so they have no reason to underestimate. Another link to the full article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jps.20636/full

Deleted_User wrote: »

The OP is the perfect example of someone being the victim of stranglehold the pharmaceutical and medical industry have on common drugs which by right should be sold over the counter.

As above, the issue you have is with the regulators, not the pharmaceutical or medical industry. Perhaps you should direct your lobbying there ?

shaun_from_Africa

Because of some of the places I work, I always have a supply of 500mg capsules of Amoxicillin with me.
If you get a tooth infection in the UK it's generally no problem getting this sorted out fairly quickly but it's not the same the world over and this medication can help relieve the symptoms until a good and trustworthy dentist can be found.
Amoxicillin is a very basic penicillin based antibiotic that can be used for a variety of infections and in the 10 years or so that I've been carrying these, I've only ever used them once but having them with me that time was a lifesaver.

I replace them every 6 months and the old ones go back to the pharmacy I buy them from. (I open the capsules so they can't get resold).

[Deleted User]

malkie76 wrote: »

you've quoted a relative, who isn't actually qualified or trained to make the statement they have. You've also completely misrepresented an article which doesn't support the claims you are making

Okay let's go through this slowly one more time.
A survey carried out by the FDA - you know the people in charge of drug licensing in the United States - found that " 90% of more than 100 drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, were perfectly good to use even 15 years after the expiration date. "

You also say a relative - in this case a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons who has spent 35 years practising medicine at the very highest levels - " isn't actually qualified or trained to make the statement they have. "

I prefer his judgement rather than Torcana's.

To repeat. An all-round anti-biotic is perfectly good to acquire from a licensed pharmacist in a foreign country where a doctor isn't available and is perfectly usable in tablet form many years after its expiry date.

malkie76

Unfortunately that statement is incorrect, according to the actual source data generated by the FDA. That's why you should always check the source material rather than a non peer reviewed article.

I've provided direct links, and the Table numbers to support my point. I note you also appear to have retracted your other statements - thank you for that.

[Deleted User]

malkie76 wrote: »

Unfortunately that statement is incorrect, according to the actual source data generated by the FDA. That's why you should always check the source material rather than a non peer reviewed article.

I've provided direct links, and the Table numbers to support my point. I note you also appear to have retracted your other statements - thank you for that.

I've corrected my original statement not retracted it
But I see you don't dispute my original point that the survey for the FDA found that 90% of all drugs are perfectly usable 15 years after their expiry date.
And you don't withdraw your ridiculous assertion that a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons isn't qualified enough to have an opinion on the safe use of antibiotics after their expiriy date.
You're spoofing.

malkie76

Deleted_User wrote: »

I've corrected my original statement not retracted it
But I see you don't dispute my original point that the survey for the FDA found that 90% of all drugs are perfectly usable 15 years after their expiry date.

No, you are still incorrect. The actual study (please, please make the effort to actually read it) stated;

FDA wrote:

Based on testing and stability assessment, 88% of the lots were extended at least 1 year beyond their original expiration date for an average extension of 66 months

Nothing like the 90% lasting 15years are you are claiming. Furthermore, Doxycycline tablets (the drug in question) may only last 12months after expiry. It wasn't a 'survey' as you now call it, it was a true scientific study measuring the actual drug at various points after the shelf life expired.

You've also incorrectly stated that (a) Doxycycline and Ibuprofen are without side effects, and (b) that antibiotics are an appropriate treatment for a 'chest infection'.

Deleted_User wrote: »

And you don't withdraw your ridiculous assertion that a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons isn't qualified enough to have an opinion on the safe use of antibiotics after their expiriy date.
You're spoofing.

They are perfectly entitled to hold an opinion, but they are not qualified in pharmacy or pharmacology to make statements about drug stability. Do you think they could draw the chemical structure, comment on ADME, solubility without consulting google ? This is clearly demonstrated because they are incorrect on the proven shelf life of Doxycycline.

Please note, I'm only taking data from the source you provided you counter the claim you are making.

sheramber

and we were able to send the insurers a note from her GP saying my wife has only had one case of confirmed urinary infection in the last year. Can we argue this any further?

What did the insurance company ask for the medical screening/ Did you answer truthfully?

Mine asked for details of any condition that had arisen in the last two years.
Then they asked about how many urine infections I had had in the last 12 months.

As you wife had had a previous urine infection it is a pre existing condition as it has had happened before.

However, it is not necessarily an ongoing condition.

jackyann

My interpretation is that a pre-existing condition is something like diabetes, hypertension, or similar, requiring on-going monitoring or treatment.
An infection that had been treated and cleared up does not need to be declared.

Some people do have chronic urinary tract infections, that would be a pre-existing condition ; but a single, resolved infection is not the same.

Assuming that OP has reported truthfully to the insurance company and accurately to us, then they should pay up.

Manxman_in_exile

jackyann wrote: »

My interpretation is that a pre-existing condition is something like diabetes, hypertension, or similar, requiring on-going monitoring or treatment.
An infection that had been treated and cleared up does not need to be declared.

Some people do have chronic urinary tract infections, that would be a pre-existing condition ; but a single, resolved infection is not the same.

Assuming that OP has reported truthfully to the insurance company and accurately to us, then they should pay up.

Our insurer asks us to declare any medical treatment we have received in the last 12 months (5 years for any heart problems). Whether or not it appears to have cleared up is irrelevant. It is whether you've received treatment within the requested time perod that is important, and was that treatment declared. (I'm ignoring the question what constitutes treatment - consulting a GP, being referred to a specialist, having tests and/or investigations, getting a prescription etc. I think these all qualify as medical treatment, and if not declared could invalidate the insurance. Honestly and fully answer the questions your insurer asks).

shaun_from_Africa

jackyann wrote: »

My interpretation is that a pre-existing condition is something like diabetes, hypertension, or similar, requiring on-going monitoring or treatment.
An infection that had been treated and cleared up does not need to be declared.

But as you've found out, your interpretation isn't the one that's important. It's now the insurance company defines "pre-existing" that is important and as with any insurance company the rule is always that if you are not sure, ask them or give them all the information when taking out the policy and let them decide.

Even if an infection has been treated and cleared up, it's possible that the person concerned is more susceptible to that type of infection hence there is a higher than normal chance of it reoccurring.
This is why insurers normally ask if there have been any medical conditions in the past 1 year, 2 years etc depending on the company.