Posted on 02/15/2006 10:14:55 PM PST by neverdem
LONDON, Feb. 15 — When her local health service refused to treat her breast cancer with the drug Herceptin, 54-year-old Ann Marie Rogers sued. But on Wednesday, a High Court judge ruled against her.
In his decision the judge, David Bean, said that although he sympathized with Ms. Rogers's predicament, the health service in Swindon, where she lives, had been justified in withholding the drug.
"The question for me is whether Swindon's policy is irrational and thus unlawful," Justice Bean wrote. "I cannot say it is."
The ruling has potentially serious implications for patients across the taxpayer-financed National Health Service.
Despite health officials' contention that decisions about treatment are based solely on clinical effectiveness, critics contend that with drugs growing ever more expensive, cost has become an increasingly important factor. They also say patients are at the mercy of the so-called postcode lottery, in which treatments are available in some postal zones but not others.
"This drug could save the lives of 1,000 women a year," Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of the lobbying group Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said of Herceptin. "It is unfair and cruel for women like Ann Marie Rogers to know that it is money and their postcode that stands between them and this potentially life-saving treatment."
Herceptin, made by Roche, is currently licensed for use in late-stage breast cancer. Although some studies have shown that it is also effective in treating HER-2 early-stage breast cancer, it has not yet been licensed for such use. If it does receive a license, the drug will be appraised for potential countrywide use.
Last fall, in response to a case in which a breast cancer patient threatened to sue her local health service, Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, publicly praised Herceptin for its potential in early-stage breast cancer treatment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Get "National Healthcare",...and die.
How long would it have been until HillaryCare gave us the same benefits in the US?
"Would have been"--don't you mean, will it be?
I would surmise that if she wants to and if she has the bucks, she could still buy the medication herself. What she can't do is sock the bill to the British taxpayer.
If y'all think this is really cool, then you're gonna love HillaryCare redux if The Beaste becomes POTUS (God please help us!)
"Get "National Healthcare",...and die"
Not sure how your system works but, as I understand it, this drug is licensed by your FDA in the same form as it is here (ie has not currently been licensed for the use that was being attempted to be claimed here).
I take it people in the US would still be able to get it regardless? What is the function of the FDA then?
"What is the function of the FDA then?"
The function of the FDA is to force drug companies to spend as much money as possible on endless drug research and trials and take the greatest amount of time before they can actually bring a drug to market so that it will be very expensive and all the bleeding heart "liberals" can whine endlessly about high drug prices.
I take it people in the US would still be able to get it regardless? What is the function of the FDA then?
It's my understanding that the FDA assures the a drug is efficacious and relatively safe for the indication for which it was initially submitted for approval. Once approved for the initial indication, physicians may use their clinical judgment for other diagnoses, and the FDA just monitors adverse drug reactions.
Then it's not really health insurance, is it.
It is all an interesting question, as I read yesterday this drug can cost $40,000 per dose or round? Roche also has another drug coming out to fight cancer that is priced at $100,000 per dose. It will be interesting to see how many insurance companies balk and how many people will be able to afford several rounds of the drug. Even with insurance some could find themselves with $20,000 bills or more. Roche admitted pricing of the new drug had little to do with research funds and was priced at what they thought market be willing to pay.
As far as being able to get it for an unapproved use it would be up to the dr. Some might be willing to risk giving it to you others may not.
Example there is a drug that has been through the FDA trials, proven effective for one type of use and approved. It is currently under a another round of trials and is proving to be outstandingly effective for treatment of benign tumors at a much lower dose, but one can't get the drug to treat those benign tumors. I've tried. The reason given so far has been, "It is not FDA approved for that use yet and it is too controversial for me to try and seek exception." The impression I was left with was the dr.(s) could get the drug, knew about the effectiveness, etc., but didn't want to go through the hassle to get the exception for treatment.
If you would have looked at the Herceptin website instead of overrelying on the NYT, you would have known that, limeynoobtrollbadteeth.
One would think cancer qualifies as a clarion call for health care. What is the function of National Healthcare then?
See comment 10. Once a drug has FDA approval for any indication, then it's just a matter of third party insurers to agree to pay for "off label" treatments, i.e. not the initial indication, aka diagnosis.
Sounds to me like you have a novel use for a pre-existing regimen -- that's usually an easier sell for a clinical trial. Keep trying! Best of luck.
Yes, I have looked into the clinical trials, but the nearest one to me is going on in New York, 8 hours away. I've spoken to the intact nurse and they won't consider me because of the distance. The current study is the second phase for the use in treatment of benign tumors.
intact=intake
Well, can't blame you there, an 8-hour trip & New York City are not exactly conducive to healing. At least if the trial is a success, the Phase IV could propogate to the Midwest and OCCU or one of the Chicago hospitals.
What can I say - health insurance in the UK is a niche market. The NHS (whatever it's problems) is very good at certain things and cancer treatment tends to be one of them, so there isn't much call for cover of that sort I guess. It must be demand driven...? Kind regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.