Posted on 06/15/2012 1:41:25 AM PDT by markomalley
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has issued draft guidance turning down the drug on the grounds that it is too expensive and the long-term benefits of it are not clear.
The drug named Zelboraf, or vemurafenib, is for malignant melanoma that has spread and carries a specific genetic mutation and costs around £1,750 per patient per week.
The makers Roche agreed an undisclosed discount for the NHS but Nice still felt it was not cost effective.
Sir Andrew Dillon, chief executive of Nice said: “We need to be sure that new treatments provide sufficient benefits to patients to justify the significant cost the NHS is being asked to pay. Vemurafenib is an expensive drug and its long term benefits are difficult to quantify."
It is thought the drug may extend life from around 9.6 months to more than 13 months, a spokesman for Roche said.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What’s even worse is these drugs will not be developed for lack of a return on investment.
The British system has a unique feature...if you are terminal in just about any fashion....even if the end is eighteen months away....other than pain medication, you won’t get nothing else.
It’s the same way if you weight over 300 pounds and need a knee replacement...you won’t get it until you usually get down to 200 pounds. With a bad knee, there’s virtually no way that you can lose weight...so you just get pain-killers until the day you pass away.
It might take twenty years, but if Obamacare stays intact....we will all be inviting regulations to dominate our health in the end. You may one day have to buy a ticket to Costa Rica....just to get the care that you think you deserve.
“If SCOTUS lets Obamacare remain intact...or if the RINO Congress tries to recraft an Obamacare-lite version, we will see this happen all too often here, as well.”
I’m not sure I see the problem. Just because the NHS doesn’t think the drug is worth the money doesn’t mean people can’t put their hand in their pocket and buy it for themselves if they disagree. The NHS doesn’t ban people from private healthcare providers or paying for it yourself.
Is that the intention of Obamacare - to replace all private healthcare and ban people from buying drugs and treatment themselves making Obamacare a mandatory monopoly? If it is I can see why people are so concerned, but that’s not how the NHS operates.
So if NICE strictly deals with what will and will not be covered by NHS and not what can and cannot be marketed, what is the agency that deals with what drugs can and cannot be marketed in the UK? (Your equivalent to the FDA)
This is exactly what American medicine needs - more bureaucracy.
Have you seen this?: “As scientists operating a small business, one of the biggest challenges they face is regulatory uncertainty, Vikram said. “Large companies have the manpower and bandwidth to keep an eye on changing governmental regulations. Smaller businesses don’t.”
It’s from here: Insera Therapeutics Slide 5 http://www.livescience.com/13210-science-business-success-nsf.html
Reality is all over, but liberals don’t want to see it.
Hey somebody tell that jerk that own’s Virgin Airlines that was raving about the British Helathcare system..forgot his name right now.
Yet the same government that is responsible for the NHS is more than perfectly willing to put up a Zambian brood mare and her family in a 2 million pound townhome, virtually rent free. Equality? I'd say it's quite a bit more than equality.
“So if NICE strictly deals with what will and will not be covered by NHS and not what can and cannot be marketed, what is the agency that deals with what drugs can and cannot be marketed in the UK? (Your equivalent to the FDA)”
NICE only provides guidelines for the NHS use of medicines, the UK drug licencing authority is the MHRA:
“”What’s even worse is these drugs will not be developed for lack of a return on investment.”
Very true.
“Yet the same government that is responsible for the NHS is more than perfectly willing to put up a Zambian brood mare and her family in a 2 million pound townhome, virtually rent free. Equality? I’d say it’s quite a bit more than equality.”
Housing is handled entirely by local councils, not by central government. In order to stop left-wing councils doing precisely what you describe, in April 2011 a tight cap was placed on housing benefit which effectively stopped what you describe:
ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE does not impact Moslems
and Congress.
Very fair, is it not?
It is called ROMNEYCARE because it was instituted,
like gay marriage, BY MR. WILLARD MARRIOT ROMNEY(CARE).
Richard Branson.Yes,I'll wager that he hasn't gone anywhere near an NHS doctor or hospital since he made his first million.Somehow I see him visiting only the most expensive doctors and hospitals in London,Boston,New York,Baltimore,Rochester,Minnesota....
“What’s even worse is these drugs will not be developed for lack of a return on investment.”
Pay cash if you want it. Problem solved.
My wife died of malignant melanoma. This is a crime against humanity. Period.
“If SCOTUS lets Obamacare remain intact...or if the RINO Congress tries to recraft an Obamacare-lite version, we will see this happen all too often here, as well. “
You will see this in any system that is not the customer paying directly for something they want.
There is an upper limit to what socialist systems will pay. People in the US aren’t used to socialism having limits because there were no limits to what we were willing to borrow. That is changing.
NHS = Medicare = Obamacare = Socialism
They are all the same in that they force people to give their property to someone else.
“Richard Branson.Yes,I’ll wager that he hasn’t gone anywhere near an NHS doctor or hospital since he made his first million.Somehow I see him visiting only the most expensive doctors and hospitals in London,Boston,New York,Baltimore,Rochester,Minnesota.... “
Shame on him for spending HIS OWN MONEY as he sees fit.
Listen to you! Your envy of success is showing.
“Coming soon to a large North American nation near you! Of course the “1%” of that nation will never be denied medications...or put on waiting lists...or be ruled by death panels,will they Mr Soros? Will they Miss Streisand? Will they,Mr algore? Will they,Osama Obama? “
Ok. You want to play commie? How far will you go? How much of their money do you want for yourself? Seriously. You obviously don’t feel it’s fair for other people to have more than you, so how much of the “1%” money do you want for yourself and people like you?
“My wife died of malignant melanoma. This is a crime against humanity. Period.”
Sir - I am very sorry for your loss - I know the pain that you feel directly.
However, such pain masks the true issue. If you must steal from one person and give it to another (and make a living on the intervening bureaucracy) THAT is the crime against humanity, and THAT is what holds medical innovations back.
Using government to steal other peoples property is the crime against humanity.
But Obamacare mandates coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.
I would be more concerned about shelling out $100,000 or more annually for outpatient chemotherapy than $10 per month for contraceptives, and I suspect the overall cost of covering the former is less than the cost of covering the latter -- but hey, which will bring more clueless voters into the 'rats column at election time?
“Sarcasm”
Definition: mocking remark
Synonyms:
acrimony, aspersion, banter, bitterness, burlesque, causticness, censure, comeback, contempt, corrosiveness, criticism, cut, cynicism, derision, dig, disparagement, flouting, invective, irony, lampooning, mockery, mordancy, put-down, raillery, rancor, ridicule, satire, scoffing, scorn, sharpness, sneering, superciliousness, wisecrack
This. To the one hundredth power.
All the whiners about "death panels" never explain who's taxes will be raised to pay for the unlimited buffet of damn-the-cost high tech healthcare for everybody.
And for those of you who think that Paul Ryan's plan (which I support) won't have it's own cost-saving rules, I have three little letters for you.
H
M
O
““Sarcasm””
Friend, I’ll take the bullet on that one.
Unfortunately, your view is expressed seriously far too often on this very board, on this very topic, so forgive me for not being able to tell the difference.
I’m sorry for misunderstanding your post, which is quite effective given the intended sarcasm.
Yes. There was a thread on FR yesterday about the panel that has/will be established with Obamacare that makes determinations on American's healthcare whether the government pays for it or not. Let me find it and I'll ping you to it.
Thank you so much! I was having an awlful time posting that link.
Or about $2700/week, $136,500/year.
It is thought the drug may extend life from around 9.6 months to more than 13 months
That adds up to $150,000 for an additional 3.4 months. Or about $44,000/month, $10,000/week.
I must be the only conservative left who wonders if this is indeed worth the price.
If it were my own money, I would certainly never spend $150,000 of what I could otherwise leave my children in order to get another 3.4 months.
But I guess if it's the government's money or the insurance company's money such considerations don't matter.
Which brings up the interesting question of how much IS too much.
Should we spend $1M to extend an individual patient's life by a week? $10M? $100M?
There are very real constraints on what we, as a society, can spend. $1M spent on A cannot be spent on anything else. So we really ought to be asking ourselves, "Where do we want to spend that money?"
Conservatism by definition recognizes there is no such thing as a free lunch. The essence of life is dealing with tradeoffs. It is liberalism that insists we cannot only have it all, we can have it for free, or at least make somebody else pay for it.
“Yes. There was a thread on FR yesterday about the panel that has/will be established with Obamacare that makes determinations on American’s healthcare whether the government pays for it or not.”
Thanks for that - I’m trying to understand how Obamacare compares to the NHS as the latter is often used as a blunt intrument to beat the former!
Even if what is described on the other thread goes ahead, Americans will still be able to get what they need via HMO’s or by paying themselves like us though won’t they?
I've seen reports of results from these newer cancer drugs -- and some individuals see very, very good and prolonged responses from them. In any case is it the gov't that should decide? Or should you allow people to buy this treatment themselves, or allow them to purchase chemotherapy riders for their health insurance policies? It might cost a couple of bucks extra on a typical policy. (Similar to NHS, Obamacare's death panels will NOT allow paying that kind of money for cancer drugs.)
New drug development has already nearly stopped partly for this reason.
That is what is so frightening about ObamaCare. It doesn't matter if you've saved through the years to fund your own health needs or not, Big Brother makes the final decision.
Once that S. T. dries up (and it will, regardless of whether conservatives or liberals are in power. You can't repeal demographics), these thousand-dollar-a-week drugs will not happen, because there is simply not enough of a paying customer base.
There are a lot of Freepers who think that anything short of unlimited expenses to prolong life by even a day is the exact equivalent of the Nazi eugenics program.
I've more or less given up arguing with those people.
“That is what is so frightening about ObamaCare. It doesn’t matter if you’ve saved through the years to fund your own health needs or not, Big Brother makes the final decision.”
That truly is frightening - I can understand the concern now!
I’m no fan of the NHS, but at least you have other options here. Good luck in fighting it.
That's because the public wants it that way. Americans want to live in a Nerf Civilization.
We dry-hump "safety" like a three year old unfixed Staffordshire mutt will hit yer leg.
unfortunately that is logical -- and that is the problem with socialized health-care. Someone needs to decide who needs something more -- and it's a hard decision. i don't envy the ones who have to make it. Finally it has to come down to raw, cold numbers because if one goes by the heart, then all need aid
Public health-care on the NHS level has this problem.
At least there is one sensible person around here. (Your math is off though :)
There was just a report last week of some African Continent immigrant and family living in a 2 million pound townhome. Government is government - same mentality just a different pool of takeable resources, that’s all.
The government in this country is originally responsible for Section 8 housing, replacing public housing, which is largely the same kind of problem - just an infinitely larger scale.
I quite agree.
This is a classic example of how an insistence on eliminating risk does not do so. All it does is create different risks while greatly increasing the cost.
But Caulkhead is correct, ultimately its different parts of the govt.
Its like blaming the British defence secretary and the MOD because the Sports Minister didnt decide to build a new national soccer stadium.
The question about "how much" is a valid question and should be answered by each individual based upon resource availability and personal values.
When the decision is made by a third party, be that third party the government or an insurance company, then arbitrary factors must be used to make that decision (i.e., death panels).
That, right there, is the reason why any kind of third party payer scheme is just plain wrong.
In a strict sense as you indicate, they are different parts. However, their budgets, mission statements, etc. are derived from the government as a collective whole; that collective whole robbing the citizens of their hard earned money and life’s blood to implement often-frivolous ends.
All of the money is still taken by threat of force in some fashion or another just like here in the United States
1—Utter rubbish. Please stop swallowing myth spewed by talk radio and Fox and FR. The idea we let terminal people die with no attempt to reverse the situation is obscene and offensive.
2—The NHS wont waste a new knee on grossly fat people, why should they if they wont try and lose weight?. BTW, you are speaking to the son of a 60 yr old man who got a knee replacement and with little exercise, but with careful dieting, lost the 20 pounds he was asked to lose before the op, and he did it in 3 wks.
It CAN be done. British people awaiting transplants lose weight all the time. As a former NHS worker, I even know of cases where grossly fat people who cant lose the weight get an op to do so, THEN get the knee operation or joint operation.
Frankly, I dont know where you are picking up all this NHS nonsense from.
You're missing the point, and you missed it on another FReeper as well. They are bitching about people being rich and paying for their own healtcare, they are bitching about rich and influential people who try to push middle class and poor people into a state run health care system, claiming it to be wonderful but not using it themselves because it just doesn't provide good care. Good enough of the peons but not good enough for them.
Many countries that have single payer don't allow people to pay out of their own pockets, I am surprised Britain isn't that way since Canada required this up 'till about a year ago. Rich Canadians came here(USA)for quality healthcare, something we won't have much longer unless Bozocare is eliminated.
The rich elites that these FReepers are talking about think it is just fine for poor to middle class people waiting 6 months for a doctors visit and actually push this BS on to the public, but will not stand for it themselves.
The US had the finest health care system in the world until communist started messing with it.
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.