Trials show the drug, which costs £36,000 a year, can increase survival by around six months for patients who have run out of options. so at most it's six months for $18000 and usually less. so their life isn't worth even $18000 to the state
Posted on 11/18/2009 6:22:37 PM PST by TribalPrincess2U
Condemned to an early death: Rationing body tells liver cancer victims that life-prolonging drug is 'too costly'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229090/Condemned-early-death-Rationing-body-tells-liver-cancer-victims-life-prolonging-drug-costly.html
Liver cancer sufferers are being condemned to an early death by being denied a new drug on the Health Service, campaigners warn. They criticised draft guidance that will effectively ban the drug sorafenib - which is routinely used in every other country where it is licensed. Trials show the drug, which costs £36,000 a year, can increase survival by around six months for patients who have run out of options.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Trials show the drug, which costs £36,000 a year, can increase survival by around six months for patients who have run out of options. so at most it's six months for $18000 and usually less. so their life isn't worth even $18000 to the state
Perhaps the only blessing is that the length of suffering is relatively short. I would be interested to see if the drug actually adds significantly to your life expectancy after your options run out, compared to letting the disease take its course. Saying that you get six months with the drug, does not mean you get six additional months that you wouldn't have had otherwise. When my family dealt with this, we were told that the average time from diagnosis to death was six months. The literature backed it up as well. Perhaps the time to death is greater now, but I would be surprised if it was.
Just how much do you expect the TAXPAYER to pay to give you a few more months of terrible pain and CONTINUED expensive medical treatment?
The cost of the drug itself is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
My uncle died of liver cancer two years ago. Time from diagnosis to death was 4 1/2 months. His insurance company refused to pay for some drug the doctor said he could try (maybe this one because it was supposed to be about 3000/month). They told him he would have to pay for it himself. The doctor said it might give him an extra month or so, so he didn’t want to put his family through the expense.
As an oncologist, the cost vs benefit ratio for some of these new drugs isn’t favorable. Some of them have response rates of 10% with the cost of thousands of dollars per month. At some point it’s of very questionable benefit. If people want to explore every possible avenue for treatment, they should pay for it out of pocket. Cold, but true.
How many people would actually choose to spend $18,000 of their *own* money to extend their lives by 6 months (and probably with very low quality of life), rather than leave the $18,000 to their children, spouse, or charity? It makes no sense to expect public health programs or private insurance programs to shell out colossal amounts of money for brief extensions of the lives of terminally ill patients, when most people wouldn’t want to spend their own hard-earned money that way. And of course the cost of the drug is just the beginning, as there will be other medical expenses during those 6 months, and rarely any economic productivity from the patient.
Exactly my point.
If folks want to pay for every possible life-extending treatment, regardless of cost, outcome, or benefit; then fine... they can do that.
But, people really shouldn’t expect complete strangers to value THEIR lives so much that we are willing to pay any price to give them a few more months.
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.