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The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has issued draft guidance turning down the drug on the grounds that it is too expensive and the long-term benefits of it are not clear.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 ...
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.
I agree.
However.
In any society the wealthy and powerful will receive the maximum possible health care.
All others will be subject to some type of rationing that determines what they will get.
In USA we ration to a considerable extent by price, with those who don’t have insurance being essentially excluded from much health care, and those with insurance being rationed by insurer rules, etc.
In countries with government health care, rationing is generally by availability, waiting lists, wait time, etc. Of course, the wealthy and powerful in these societies generally have connections that allow them to circumvent these restrictions.
My point is that all countries ration health care, the major difference being the mechanism they use to do so.
Should have read:They are NOT bitching about people being rich and paying for their own healtcare,
Should have read:They are NOT bitching about people being rich and paying for their own healthcare,
“In USA we ration to a considerable extent by price, with those who don’t have insurance being essentially excluded from much health care, and those with insurance being rationed by insurer rules, etc.”
That is not necessarily true. Until recent decades, we had a remarkable system of care that was administered through charitable means. While hardly perfect, it provided care for many who were not independently wealthy. Only with the advent of third pray payer insurance and with government paid healthcare did this system gradually disappear.
The traditional charitable health care system, by definition, wasn’t really a system. It was very hit and miss, and no doubt many fell through the cracks.
A major factor in its disappearance has been the greatly increasing cost of health care, which has many causes, but certainly a major one is technology, which makes health care more effective in many ways, but also MUCH more expensive.
I do not denigrate American health care. In many, not all, ways it is among the best in the world.
However, 1940 or 1960 era medicine was a whole other animal from what is available today. Paying for the earlier version via charity is utterly different from providing today’s state of the art using the same method.
I figured as much.
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.