US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

[chanel]

A decision to rescind endorsement of the drug would reignite the highly charged debate over US health care reform and how much the state should spend on new and expensive treatments.

Avastin, the world’s best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread.

It costs $8,000 (£5,000) a month and is given to about 17,500 women in the US a year. The drug was initially approved after a study found that, by preventing blood flow to tumours, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months. However, two new studies have shown that the drug may not even extend life by an extra month.

The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.

If the approval of the drug is revoked then US insurers would be likely to stop paying for Avastin.

The Avastin recommendation led to revived allegations that President Barack Obama’s overhaul of the US health care system would mean many would be denied treatments currently available.

During the debate, those opposed to the reforms cited Britain’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which decides whether new treatments should be made available on the NHS on the basis of cost effectiveness, as an example of the sort of drug rationing that amounted to a "death panel".

When reviewing drugs for approval the FDA is only charged with looking at their health risks and benefits, not cost effectiveness. It usually follows advisory panel recommendations. A final decision will be announced on Sept 17.

US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels' - Telegraph

This British HC system. Isn't our new HC Czar a big fan?

 

[Mad Scientist]

But, but, I thought rich people we're gonna' pay for all my health care?

 

[chanel]

Obama hates girls with cancer - Kanye West. lol

 

[strollingbones]

so one prefers insurance companies make the decisions? how many people are denied treatment by insurance companies....how many people need so called 'orphan drugs' that dont get them...it just goes on and on...

 

[Greenbeard]

To review, Palin's "death panel" bullshit was:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care.

That has nothing to do with deciding whether a treatment is effective, it's a decision about whether an individual person is worth treating. That, of course, will never happen. And that isn't even close to what you're talking about here.

The fact that people demonize things like paying for value is exactly why we have such an outrageously expensive system without appreciably better health outcomes than other developed nations. I would think this is obvious but apparently it needs to be pointed out: sentiments like "I want lower premiums!" and "insurance companies should cover every drug that does absolutely nothing!" ("two new studies have shown that the drug may not even extend life by an extra month") are incompatible.

There is no "death panel" that's going to say to someone "we're no longer going to pay for any care for you." However, I would hope we start spending communal money (i.e. payouts from insurance pools) on effective treatments, yielding 1) better health outcomes and 2) cost savings.

You can still buy useless drugs with your own money, no one will stop you.

 

[chanel]

Not if the company is put out of business. I imagine many drugs are very expensive in the beginning. Why would a company make an expensive drug if only a handful of people can afford it?

 

[Greenbeard]

In that case, you can swing by the nearest candy store and pick up some Pez. That'll be about as effective at fighting your ailment as the hypothetical defunct company's wonder drugs.

 

[edthecynic]

However, two new studies have shown that the drug may not even extend life by an extra month.

The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest...

When reviewing drugs for approval the FDA is only charged with looking at their health risks and benefits, not cost effectiveness. It usually follows advisory panel recommendations. A final decision will be announced on Sept 17.

US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels' - Telegraph

This British HC system. Isn't our new HC Czar a big fan?

Two studies show the drug was not effective in treating breast cancer and the panel rejected the drug for its lack of effectiveness and some UNNAMED quack adds the word "cost" and that settles it. The fact that the drug DOESN'T WORK no longer matters, all that matters is "death panels."
DEATH PANELS, be afraid, DEATH PANELS, Obama, DEATH PANELS.

 

[strollingbones]

Not if the company is put out of business. I imagine many drugs are very expensive in the beginning. Why would a company make an expensive drug if only a handful of people can afford it?

so you are good with insurance and drug companies deciding who should live?

 

[fyrenza]

DEATH PANELS, be afraid, DEATH PANELS, Obama, DEATH PANELS.

Can you tell me you honestly DON't see any correlation between the horrible abuses of the HMO's of yesteryear and this issue?

It's a true saying about how forgetting the past dooms folks to repeating it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In that case, you can swing by the nearest candy store and pick up some Pez. That'll be about as effective at fighting your ailment as the hypothetical defunct company's wonder drugs.

Obama suggested an aspirin, or a breathalyzer and now it's Pez. Interesting.

 

[xotoxi]

A decision to rescind endorsement of the drug would reignite the highly charged debate over US health care reform and how much the state should spend on new and expensive treatments.

Avastin, the world’s best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread.

It costs $8,000 (£5,000) a month and is given to about 17,500 women in the US a year. The drug was initially approved after a study found that, by preventing blood flow to tumours, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months. However, two new studies have shown that the drug may not even extend life by an extra month.

The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.

If the approval of the drug is revoked then US insurers would be likely to stop paying for Avastin.

The Avastin recommendation led to revived allegations that President Barack Obama’s overhaul of the US health care system would mean many would be denied treatments currently available.

During the debate, those opposed to the reforms cited Britain’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which decides whether new treatments should be made available on the NHS on the basis of cost effectiveness, as an example of the sort of drug rationing that amounted to a "death panel".

When reviewing drugs for approval the FDA is only charged with looking at their health risks and benefits, not cost effectiveness. It usually follows advisory panel recommendations. A final decision will be announced on Sept 17.

US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels' - Telegraph

This British HC system. Isn't our new HC Czar a big fan?

Last month, the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee sifted through data from two subsequent studies. These showed that progression-free survival time ranged from about one month to nearly three months -- even less than the original study -- without extending patients' overall survival.

FDA Reviews Roche's Drug Avastin for Use Against Breast Cancer - DailyFinance

That means that, essentially, the med doesn't work.

And at $8,000 per month, it should work.

 

[xotoxi]

I can make a chemo that is just about as effective as Avastin, yet for half the price!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The US Department of Education doesn't work either, can we get rid of it?

 

[xotoxi]

The US Department of Education doesn't work either, can we get rid of it?

Proof?

 

[chanel]

Why is it the country's "best selling cancer drug" if it doesn't work? Will it still be approved for colon cancer?

 

[jillian]

Obama hates girls with cancer - Kanye West. lol

you're an idiot.

 

[Truthmatters]

Ask yourself why this drug is SOOOO expensive.

Its because someone owns the patent on it and keeps it this high to make a butt load of money

 

[strollingbones]

so let me get this right....drug companies shouldnt make any drug that is not profitable....

but that is not a form of a death panel? insurance companies are for profit. when you make a claim they simply hope you die first. that is the most profitable scenario for them.

 

[chanel]

Of course. And if xotoxi is right that the drug does not work, then that's important. But the cost should not be a factor. Eventually prices come down once the R &D costs are covered. Slippery slope. Truthmatters and greenbeard believe in Pez treatment. That would explain a lot.