A Step Closer to Death Panels

[loosecannon]

I should be able to buy a private insurance policy that covers that, yes, if the plan offers it.

In this case, it's government saying "no" with the FDA.

If you can afford an insurance policy that covers it you should be able to afford the treatment itself.

If the government actually prohibits you from buying this treatment with your own money you have a right to complain.

But unless that happens you don't.

 

[loosecannon]

The FDA ruling green lights private insurance to cease to cover it.

Just like cutting off mammograms did last time around.

Excellent, I wouldn't want the general public to be forced to subsidize this misuse of funds via their insurance premiums.

Private insurance is a risk pool you voluntarily contract to join.

And every risk pool has the right to limit the boundaries of the it's liabilities to a single patient.

This is socialism you know, you are describing socialized medicine and actively advocating it.

 

[Revere]

Your insurance premium is your own money. This is government interference in a health care modality that worked.

 

[Revere]

Excellent, I wouldn't want the general public to be forced to subsidize this misuse of funds via their insurance premiums.

Private insurance is a risk pool you voluntarily contract to join.

And every risk pool has the right to limit the boundaries of the it's liabilities to a single patient.

This is socialism you know, you are describing socialized medicine and actively advocating it.

No, it's socialism only when government imposes it. This is not the risk pool imposing the boundaries, it's government.

 

[xotoxi]

Private insurance is a risk pool you voluntarily contract to join.

And every risk pool has the right to limit the boundaries of the it's liabilities to a single patient.

This is socialism you know, you are describing socialized medicine and actively advocating it.

No, it's socialism only when government imposes it. This is not the risk pool imposing the boundaries, it's government.

It's the government notifying the public that this medication does not do what it intended, and thus, it cannot be marketed as such.

And what is your problem with this. Do you think that a company should be able to market and sell a product which has been proven to be ineffective for what it is being sold?

 

[Revere]

It was only de-listed over cost.

 

[xotoxi]

It was only de-listed over cost.

The FDA did not look at cost. It looked at effectiveness.

 

[uscitizen]

Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases — and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
~
With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
~
Avastin is currently used mainly in cases of late-stage colon cancer, a disease that affects about 50,000 Americans annually. On average, those patients take the drug for 11 months and it extends their lives an average of 5 months, compared with other treatments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15drug.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Sounds like Genetech plans to rip off people dying from breast cancer to me

 

[xotoxi]

Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases — and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
~
With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
~
Avastin is currently used mainly in cases of late-stage colon cancer, a disease that affects about 50,000 Americans annually. On average, those patients take the drug for 11 months and it extends their lives an average of 5 months, compared with other treatments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15drug.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Sounds like Genetech plans to rip off people dying from breast cancer to me

And in my reading of the FDA summary of findings, it appears that the approval was pulled because the above result could not be reproduced.

In fact, a glass of cat piss twice daily was just as effective.

 

[loosecannon]

Private insurance is a risk pool you voluntarily contract to join.

And every risk pool has the right to limit the boundaries of the it's liabilities to a single patient.

This is socialism you know, you are describing socialized medicine and actively advocating it.

No, it's socialism only when government imposes it. This is not the risk pool imposing the boundaries, it's government.

bullshit, when government regulated monopolies impose it, it is every bit as much socialized medicine as if the feds themselves mandated it.

It's funny how you love socialism when it supports banks that killed the economy, the military industrial welfare complex and when it melds into fascism in the health insurance industry.

HEY! you love welfare along all the same lines!

 

[loosecannon]

Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases — and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
~
With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
~
Avastin is currently used mainly in cases of late-stage colon cancer, a disease that affects about 50,000 Americans annually. On average, those patients take the drug for 11 months and it extends their lives an average of 5 months, compared with other treatments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15drug.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Sounds like Genetech plans to rip off people dying from breast cancer to me

It sounds like the firm is testing the market to see how much money they can sell a drug for that only costs $40 to produce for a year's dose.

ROI!

 

[Revere]

And every risk pool has the right to limit the boundaries of the it's liabilities to a single patient.

This is socialism you know, you are describing socialized medicine and actively advocating it.

No, it's socialism only when government imposes it. This is not the risk pool imposing the boundaries, it's government.

bullshit, when government regulated monopolies impose it, it is every bit as much socialized medicine as if the feds themselves mandated it.

It's funny how you love socialism when it supports banks that killed the economy, the military industrial welfare complex and when it melds into fascism in the health insurance industry.

HEY! you love welfare along all the same lines!

Regulated monopolies are government.

There are about 3000 insurance carrriers. Heavily government regulated, but hardly a monopoly, yet.

 

[Revere]

Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases — and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
~
With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
~
Avastin is currently used mainly in cases of late-stage colon cancer, a disease that affects about 50,000 Americans annually. On average, those patients take the drug for 11 months and it extends their lives an average of 5 months, compared with other treatments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15drug.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Sounds like Genetech plans to rip off people dying from breast cancer to me

It sounds like the firm is testing the market to see how much money they can sell a drug for that only costs $40 to produce for a year's dose.

ROI!

Why do you get to decide which private or intellectual property belongs in the public domain?

 

[Revere]

Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases — and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
~
With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
~
Avastin is currently used mainly in cases of late-stage colon cancer, a disease that affects about 50,000 Americans annually. On average, those patients take the drug for 11 months and it extends their lives an average of 5 months, compared with other treatments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15drug.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Sounds like Genetech plans to rip off people dying from breast cancer to me

And in my reading of the FDA summary of findings, it appears that the approval was pulled because the above result could not be reproduced.

In fact, a glass of cat piss twice daily was just as effective.

Efficacy was established long ago. This is not Mexican laetrile.

It's rationing. Even a fanatic like lose stools is arguing its about money.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, it's socialism only when government imposes it. This is not the risk pool imposing the boundaries, it's government.

bullshit, when government regulated monopolies impose it, it is every bit as much socialized medicine as if the feds themselves mandated it.

It's funny how you love socialism when it supports banks that killed the economy, the military industrial welfare complex and when it melds into fascism in the health insurance industry.

HEY! you love welfare along all the same lines!

Regulated monopolies are government.

There are about 3000 insurance carrriers. Heavily government regulated, but hardly a monopoly, yet.

You are shitting us, right?
Insurance companies run most states. I am a Goldwater conservative and know that.

 

[Revere]

No, state insurance commissioners set rates in most states.

 

[xotoxi]

Efficacy was established long ago. This is not Mexican laetrile.

It's rationing. Even a fanatic like lose stools is arguing its about money.

Efficacy was established by the company to get it fast tracked by the FDA.

Further studies were unable to prove efficacy.

The FDA ruling was made on lack of efficacy, not on cost/benefit.

If you can show proof otherwise (excluding your own opinions, the opinions of other posters, or the opinions expressed in various articles or blogs) that the FDA took into consideration the cost of the medication, then I would be interested in seeing it.

 

[Samson]

Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.

And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.



The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com

Interesting revelation on the conflict of interest angle of Federally Funded Healthcare.

However, I wonder: Given the strength of the Pharma-Lobby (no wet noodle), how do you explain this "Fatal Move From the FDA."

 

[Revere]

Efficacy was established long ago. This is not Mexican laetrile.

It's rationing. Even a fanatic like lose stools is arguing its about money.

Efficacy was established by the company to get it fast tracked by the FDA.

Further studies were unable to prove efficacy.

The FDA ruling was made on lack of efficacy, not on cost/benefit.

If you can show proof otherwise (excluding your own opinions, the opinions of other posters, or the opinions expressed in various articles or blogs) that the FDA took into consideration the cost of the medication, then I would be interested in seeing it.

The FDA made a purely political decision, which was delayed after the election.

 

[Revere]

Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.

And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.



The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com

Interesting revelation on the conflict of interest angle of Federally Funded Healthcare.

However, I wonder: Given the strength of the Pharma-Lobby (no wet noodle), how do you explain this "Fatal Move From the FDA."

That's how corporate cronyism works.