Mostly, yes. The newer insulins (well they've been around for 20 years) have molecules which are engineered be faster acting so that they reduce peaks in blood sugar after meals; or longer lasting, so they can provide a more predictable background coverage.
The same Edward Bernays also did a PR stunt to market cigarettes to women, calling them "torches of freedom", associating women's smoking (which was considered taboo at the time) with feminism.
tip - if you want to cd into a UNC path, you can't; but you can pushd into one and it'll create a temporary drive letter mapping and unmap it when you popd out
Personally I'd say there is no difference; I've stuck out on syringes in the uk for ages just because I found them lightweight and convenient; but recently moved to pre-filled pens. The cost to the NHS for prefilled pens vs syringes is pretty negligible.
Syringes were fine for me, pens might be less embarrassing to use in public maybe?
are we talking the same thing, I am thinking of the pens I used to use that you would dial the dosage in and then push the plunger. In Canada, those pen fills costed about 70 vs 36 for the vials, but they also had 15mL of insulin vs 10mL. So about 1/3 more with the syringes and needles being about the same price.
The problem isn't their choice of insulin delivery, it is that there are no price controls and an incentive to increase prices without any significant loss in sales. This is an area that government need to be all over.
In areas the mafia doesn't exist (an analogy the title makes by calling it a racket), the cost of paying the mafia is $0. So it might be £30/vial no mafia fee in the U.K., and the same + $10,000 mafia fee in America.
However, doesn't some of that mafia fee go toward R&D? (Developing new drugs)? Why isn't the price to the NHS slightly higher, also in part to fund research?
It's hard to imagine $10,000 just gets pocketed by Don Carleone, without any of it going back to the laboratory.
> Why isn't the price to the NHS slightly higher, also in part to fund research?
The NHS (via NICE) sets a standard amount that it is prepared to pay for any treatment based on the QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) it results in. So really a non-generic manufacturer can charge whatever they like, so long as the end result is worth it. In a sense we don't eliminate the mafia, just set the terms of engagement under which they have to justify their pricing. Whether they take that money and spend it on R&D or dividends is the vendor's decision.
I'm trying to figure out if the cost in Sweden (or UK NHS) is using the older recipe so the a valid comparison. If so the US Walmart product isn't so different. I'm trying to compare like with like.
Hmm, I could imagine that the legibility of sentences and paragraphs, where you are pretty much reading a word at a time, is different from the legibility of things like codes where you are reading a character at a time. And for short words like table column headings, I suspect there isn't much difference either way.
