Skip to comments.NICE: Prostate cancer drug too costly for NHS
Posted on 02/01/2012 5:00:49 PM PST by originalbuckeye
A drug that can extend the life of men with advanced prostate cancer by more than three months has provisionally been rejected for NHS use. The health watchdog for England and Wales says the drug's benefits are not enough to justify the price the NHS has been asked to pay. Cancer charities have been angered by the decision about abiraterone, one of the few drugs available to men in the final stages of prostate cancer. A final decision is yet to be made. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer to affect men in the UK. Abiraterone costs just under £3,000 for one month's supply but has been offered at a undisclosed discounted price to the NHS. Cancer charities have criticised the health regulator's decision. "Quite simply, abiraterone prolongs the life of men with incurable prostate cancer. The draft decision is a bitter blow to thousands of men and their families and must be overturned," said Owen Sharp, chief executive of The Prostate Cancer Charity. Prof Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK's chief clinician, said: "Only one other drug is available on the NHS that has been shown to prolong survival but it has more severe side-effects than abiraterone and is effective in fewer men." Cancer Research UK, which provided support in the development of the drug and could benefit from its royalties, said it believed that NICE might have overestimated the number of people who needed the drug. It said that if the regulator rethought the criteria used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of the drug, there is a chance it could be made available. NICE said it had already used the appropriate methods in its review, and concluded that the number men who would need the drug was too large to consider such agreements.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
The gay link to AIDS made it NECESSARY to test these types of drugs 10 or 15 years ago, and now “AIDS is no longer a death sentence” — if I remember leftist propaganda correctly.
To be honest, I’d be surprised if private insurers here in the U.S. would pay $3,000 per month simply to extend a terminal patient’s life for a few months.
Not sure I would want to prolong the misery for three months.
Don't let any Leftwingtard fool you on this one. In America we have higher medical costs because we save premature babies, treat cancer patients, use the best available technology, and keep medical facilities clean.
That's simply not the case elsewhere ~ not in Europe, not in Asia, not in Africa, not in South America, not in Mexico.
ObamaKKKare is going to raise the price anyway, even though they'll try to kill people to cut costs.
Well yeah. It’s not like the drug would help cure breast cancer or something.
Socialized medicine systems weigh the cost of your medical care against the need of the Carabinieri for a new tunic top for their Class-A uniforms.
The Carabinieri win every single time.
Should the government be paying for any patient’s drugs from tax revenues?
The lowest tax rate is 50% and the Gov’t can no longer afford it’s Socialist programs. And that is coming here.
...especially during this Republican Primary season...
In the U.S. it’s called Zytiga I think. It isn’t a cure and like all medications some can’t handle the side effects. Yes it is very expensive as in several thousand a month here in the U.S. It is new too the market released IIRC this past summer. My dad was on it through some special program through his insurer and the company that made it but could not handle taking even half the dosage. The onocologist had good results in other patients though. Dad passed about a month and a half after going off of it. Zytiga is the medication of last try in Prostate cancer.
The cost of this drug is approximately $93,000. In clinical trials, it prolonged life on average approximately 3 months compared to men who did not take the drug.
Unless you're a Lord. Then it's nothings too good for you m'lud.
Bureaucrats also justify their existence by reviewing the rules periodically and often saying “no”. If they approved everything, if the rules were simple and straightforward, there wouldn’t be such a need for overpaid bureaucrats to suck money out of the “medical” system.
Look at NHS proposing shutting down wards and laying off nurses to save money, but never laying off the higher paid bureaucrats.
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.