make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Local family awaiting state's decision on budget

READ MORE: Local family awaiting state's decision on budget
max300.jpg

The state budget situation has created a lot of uncertainty, especially for a local family waiting to hear what lawmakers in Raleigh are going to do. Max Weavil is completely disabled, and if programs like Medicaid get cut, the Weavil family may be forced to pay thousands of dollars per month out of pocket for Max's medication and supplies.

Many love Max Weavil III.  He's been disabled since he was one year old.  At age 24, Max can't walk, talk or feed himself.
 
"I love him, I adore my brother,” Bambi Weavil said.  She is one of Max's many angels. Bambi Weavil is his older sister, and along with working full time, she helps her mom and dad take care of Max 24 hours a day.
 
"If he's sick, we know silently that he's sick. He can't tell us that he's sick. We have to have visual cues,” Bambi said.

Max's medication alone costs $3,000 a month. It's that medication that can save his life. 

"If something goes wrong, he could die," Bambi said. "The medication is that critical. It keeps him from having seizures."

If state lawmakers decide to cut their budget by reducing Medicaid and caregiver funding, the Weavil family may be forced to pay out of pocket for Max's therapy, medication and all sorts of equipment like his wheelchair.
 
“The stress financially on us to make it affordable would be outrageous,” Bambi said.

It's the caregiver funding allocation that is so crucial to the Weavils. The state anticipates having to cut more than $2 billion from Education and Health and Human Services alone. Lawmakers are set to discuss what exactly to cut on July 16. Until then, the Weavils are waiting patiently for another angel to help save Max.

The program that allows the Weavil's to stay home and take care of Max is called the Community Alternatives Program for Persons with Developmental Disabilities.  It aims to help disabled people find treatment rather than be institutionalized. For more information, visit the family's website at http://www.calltoactionnc.com.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

Rationing of care will lead to even sadder stories...

Get used to this. The politicians are talking about cutting Medicaid & Medicare costs and more and more, discussions are occurring regarding palliative & end of life care how we're spending too much in those areas. The battle cry is often similar to this: "We don't have health care, we have sick care. We're spending too much on those who are already sick and not prevention." More and more, you're going to see government and private insurance companies refusing to prolong the lives of people who are incurably sick & disabled. The revamping of the health care system in the US will likely result in people such as this being left behind.

Cuts in budget for DHHS

Besides education, this area should never be cut. It does cost less for the individual to remain at home plus it's definitely more comfortable & loving. I've worked as a caregiver for the terminal & adults with developmental disabilities & they need everything we can give them. My late husband lived longer with pancreatic cancer at home then he would have in the hospital. Plus it will create more jobs for compassionate people to help others during their time of need & pay them what they deserve.

disabled

go to calltoactionnc.com and sign the petition and call the representatives on that page and tell them how immoral this is to use the disabled and disadvantage as a ping-pong ball. You want to destroyed another family structure one that is so very important to special people such as the disabled.

It is a sad situation, but

It is a sad situation, but $3000 a month for meds is not fair to the taxpayers who are going without themselves during these times. If this person and others like him can be cared for in an institution for less money, then serious consideration should be given to putting him there.

location is not the problem

There is research going back years that shows that keeping individuals in their home, even with significant amounts of support costs less than putting them into institutions. That's why the state always wants to close mental hospitals, etc. There needs to be funding for people like this for all of their care needs. Period, otherwise there is not a soul that can call this a "christian" nation.

It's NOT a "Christian Nation."

We are a secular nation that recognizes no "official" religion. Christ tells us that WE are responsible for our neighbor. NOWHERE does he state that the government is tasked to do it. Do not confuse mandated Socialist re-distribution of wealth with Christian charity.

Doesn't matter

If it COSTS less to have him in an institution, put him there. Not fair to those of us paying for him otherwise...in other words taxpayers

Help the less fortunate

If we can't help people like this we should be ashamed. I wouldn't pave one more road, gas one more school bus, hire one more cop, hire one more consultant, build one more convention center until this young man's needs are met. And shame on the drug company selling life saving meds for $3,000 a month. What could it possibly cost to make? 50 cents?

What were the R&D costs?

How much did that company pay out in development, testing, clinical trials and the approval process? How many millions, tens of millions, or more did it cost? Are the owners of that company (that's every shareholder) allowed to make a profit? God save us from people who put emotion ahead of simple Economics.

You hit a nail on the head

many folks will not want to agree with. Yet it's the plain truth. Our R&D costs escalate through all of the testing and retesting which the FDA requires. Add to that the costs for products liability insurance which the manufacturers find necessary due to our litigous society. When you look at inexpensive pharmacutical costs abroad, remember they have tort liability caps and do not require the years of testing and research which drive up our costs.

meds

Problem is Common that Americans absorb most of the cost for R&D but the drugs are sold worldwide in most cases. There are drugs that have been on the market 10-20 years that are still priced through the roof. I had a scrip for a migraine medication about 10 years ago, my insurance wouldn't cover them, they where $13.00 a PILL. I didn't get them. I see people getting meds so cheap in Europe and Canada, Mexico etc. That's full price for cash not insurance. You can not think that is fair?

Read Tom's reply, above

Lawsuits are capped in many foreign locations, and they ride our coattails regarding R&D costs. Another issue that lowers cost is government interference in the free market. This can range from a subsidy (i.e., the government purchases the meds and then sells them at a discounted rate) to outright blackmail, such as we saw with the cost of offshore AZT during the Clinton Administration. India and Brazil had threatened to violate the Burroughs Wellcome patent and produce their own AZT if the cost was not reduced. The United States Government sided with Brazil and India and said that we would not join any attempt to enforce patent rights. As a result, people in the Third World were paying pennies for AZT while here in the States, the cost was still something like $15 a pill.

Common, I usually agree with

Common, I usually agree with your statements. Most of the time they are right on. However, as someone who's good friend works for the pharmaceutical companies, I can assure you that these drugs don't cost that much to manufacture. The VIP's for these companies are getting more than their fare share. Why do you think they were so quick to cut a deal with president Nobama.

How about lawsuits?

How much defensive cash reserve do they need to retain? How about peripheral costs, such as advertising and distribution? And what do the VP's salaries have to do with how much the drug costs? Are you advocating reducing executive salaries to make drugs more affordable? That's a great way to lose your best talent. It also muddies the water regarding the exact role and obligations of a corporation. Their duty is to maximize profit for shareholders while providing a quality product or service to their clients. They're not a social service agency. BTW, according to a study conducted by DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski in 2003, the AVERAGE cost of bringing a brand new drug to market is $800 million. Lots come in cheaper, many exceed that and have gone as high as $2 billion. As far as dealing with the Obama Administration, I can only assume it's part of the "Oppenheimer Cave-in Syndrome," as we saw during the Chrysler bankruptcy negotiations. Oppenheimer abandoned a perfectly valid lawsuit that likely would have prevailed after administration officials threatened to "ruin their reputation and insure they attracted no new business" if they did not agree to drop their claim and subordinate senior debt to the unsecured debt held by the UAW. As one FORMER Obama supporter said, "It was like dealing with the Mafia."

Approval

To get approval for a new drug can in itself take years.

The FDA Approval Process

The FDA Approval Process takes some stages: 1. Pre-clinical studies 2. Phase I, II, III trials (the longest period which substantial commitment from medics) 3. Post-marketing stage Only after theese steps drug is released to public.