Melanoma drug 'too expensive' for NHS

The Telegraph ^ | 15 Jun 2012 | Rebecca Smith

[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The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has issued draft guidance turning down the drug on the grounds that it is too expensive and the long-term benefits of it are not clear.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.

[RFEngineer]

“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.

[RFEngineer]

“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?

[RFEngineer]

“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.

[Sooth2222]

In the US, health insurance policies may or may not cover payment for outpatient chemotherapy.

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?

[uncbob]

It is thought the drug may extend life from around 9.6 months to more than 13 months, a spokesman for Roche said.

What a break through !!!!!!!!

[Gay State Conservative]

“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

[Notary Sojac]

Pay cash if you want it. Problem solved.

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

[RFEngineer]

““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.

[LSAggie]

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?

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.

[DFG]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2895404/posts

[LSAggie]

Thank you so much! I was having an awlful time posting that link.

[Sherman Logan]

costs around £1,750 per patient per week.

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.

[Caulkhead]

“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?

[Sooth2222]

"I must be the only conservative left who wonders if this is indeed worth the price."

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.)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

New drug development has already nearly stopped partly for this reason.

[LSAggie]

IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not.

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.

[Notary Sojac]

One thing that few people want to mention is that much of our development of new drugs, procedures, implantable devices over the last fifty years owes its existence to the fact that the Big Medicare Sugar Tit has paid for everything on a cost-plus basis.

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.

[Notary Sojac]

But I guess if it's the government's money or the insurance company's money such considerations don't matter.

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.

[Caulkhead]

“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.

[JohnBovenmyer]

The flip side is that the government is a big part of why the medications cost so much. Its regulations make drug development very expensive, especially for uncommon conditions in which those costs can't be divided amongst millions of potential customers. They are making the drugs so 'safe' that nobody can afford them. The history of alternative medicine shows that desperate patients are willing to spend loads of money on alleged treatments with scientific proof of neither efficacy nor safety. Opening up the market to products clearly labelled as meeting lower standards, and with corresponding lower potential tort liabilities, would lower monetary costs in trade for the wannabee patient taking on greater non-monetary risks. Caveat emptor instead of the nanny state.