US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

The Telegraph ^ | 8/16/2010 | Nick Allen in Los Angeles and Andrew Hough

[Enchante]

a Bell curve of results will surely show that some patients receiving this drug survive much longer than others?

at least that’s the case with most cutting-edge medical treatments for cancers etc.

plus there is the prospect for refining and narrowing the criteria for which patients benefit a lot more.....

I’d be extremely hesitant to throw away such possibilities for anyone I care about.....

[speaking as an 8-year survivor of a type of aggressive carcinoma which used to kill all of its patients just a generation ago]

I owe my life to a pair of chemo drugs which were once only “experimental” and I’d like to extend the maximum possible benefit-of-any-doubt to doctors and patients and families trying to find their way through the difficulties of late-stage cancer treatments

[CharlesWayneCT]

If medical studies show that the drug doesn’t even extend life by a single month, and if the drug doesn’t improve the quality of life during the time before death, then the drug is basically ineffective, and if so, why should it be recommended?

[CharlesWayneCT]

People should be able to do pretty much whatever they want to try to live when they have such an advanced disease.

This is a recommendation only, although it could effect insurance. It doesn't prevent doctors from prescribing the medicine, or people from buying it.

Certainly being near death doesn't grant people carte blanche to take any medications they want paid for by their insurance companies, regardless of whether those drugs are any benefit.

That is a contract between a person and the insurance they purchase, and government shouldn't be interfering in that contract.

[Haiku Guy]

You would be surprised how low the price could be and it still would not be worth their money to keep you alive.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

But the government does, by barring non-FDA approved compounds to people who are willing to try them. That doesn’t mean they should be able to pop any pill in their mouths that they want. But there are many drugs that have cleared most hurdles and are caught up on bureaucracy or that were not cleared for a specific application. I don’t think it’s right to bar these from people who are willing to try them. Hell, insurance companies pay a lot of money for drugs to treat sexually contracted diseases that could have been avoided by controlling one’s behavior.

[SuziQ]

Keep in mind that Avastin is used for late-stage cancers.

This is a good point. Either the patient will be healed, or the patient will die. Either way, the cost will not have to be sustained indefinitely. Sounds like the decision to deny funding of the treatment is 'penny wise, but pound foolish'.

[dervish]

Avastin is also used for Macular Degeneration of the eyes.

In UK their policy was to approve it only after a person went blind in one eye.

Coming here soon....

[dervish]

There is a lot of propaganda now in the media that routine mammography is not helpful.

Get ready for that to be cut next.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I think the decision is less “penny wise/dollar foolish” (though, you’re right, it is a form of rationing and cutting costs) and more about getting the US citizen accustomed to having a bureaucracy make healthcare decisions for us.

Just like courts deciding who can be married and who can’t rather than a fair, legal, democratic vote (overwhelming, I might add).

It’s all about precedent.