What PRICE To Pay For Life?

[iLander]

Cancer Doctors Protest 'Astronomical' Drug Costs

With some new, potentially lifesaving cancer drugs costing up to $138,000 a year, about 120 leading cancer specialists have joined forces in an unusual protest aimed at getting pharmaceutical companies to cut prices.

Charging high prices for drugs cancer patients need to survive is like “profiteering” from a natural disaster by jacking up prices for food and other necessities, leading cancer doctors and researchers from around the world contend in a new paper published in Blood, the journal of the American Society of Hematology.

Of 12 new cancer drugs that received FDA approval last year, 11 of them cost in excess of $100,000 a year—prices that the specialists attack as “astronomical,” “unsustainable,” and maybe even immoral. What’s more, only three of these drugs were found to improve patient survival rates and of these, two only increased it by less than two months, according to the Washington Post.

Some of the specialists who joined the protest were inspired by the doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) who refused to use a new colon cancer drug called Zaltrap because it cost more than twice as much ($11,063 on average for one month of treatment) as another drug (Avastin) without improving outcomes.

Full Article: http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/cancer-doctors-protest-astronomical-drug-costs

So the drug companies are charging OUTRAGEOUS prices, and the drugs DON'T WORK??

The drug companies are becoming like snake oil salesmen!

 

[kenny]

I'm deeply conflicted on this.
On one hand when life is at stake it almost seems like the patients have a moral right to whatever technology/drug exists to save them whether they can pay or not.
(but what about the billions in the poorest nations?)

But ...
It costs zillions to bring a drug to market.
Next there is free competition.
With such high profits available, other companies to try to get a patent first, or develop a drug with similar effect at lower cost.

The only reason these drugs even exist is not altruism, it's profits.
Medicine is a business.

Glob bless Jonas Salk who refused to patent and profit from the polio vaccine he developed.
It was his gift to the world.
There are no Salks today.

 

[JewelFreak]

Like Kenny, I can see both sides. It costs about a billion dollars to get a drug from concept to market -- IF it gets that far; incredible fortunes are spent on meds that don't pan out & are abandoned at varying points in development. If companies can't profit from the ones they can sell, there will be no new ones coming up. Then what?

On the other hand is life and death, where money seems an obscene consideration.

The market works as it should in this particular case: the drug isn't very effective. Doctors won't prescribe it for that reason, combined with its overwhelming price. It will probably fail & disappear.

--- Laurie

 

[Boatluvr]

The patients don't pay that price! If they are uninsured they don't get the drug. If they ARE insured, the insurance companies pay, and pay, and pay. And you wonder why our rates keep going up? I don't.

 

[webdiva]

Actually, many of the insured patients don't receive it either. My parents had to pay for the Avastin treatment for my dad out of pocket. The cost of a small, used car every month. You get a different perspective on it when you can get a few more months with a loved one. I definitely think there's something shady with the pharm companies going on, though.

 

[iLander]

The part that makes me the maddest is:

Of 12 new cancer drugs, only three of these drugs were found to improve patient survival rates and of these, two only increased it by less than two months.

THAT's the part that gets me.

If it doesn't work, it shouldn't be prescribed, and it shouldn't be bankrupting families to pay for what is basically a placebo.

 

[nomissjane]

The part that makes me the maddest is:

Of 12 new cancer drugs, only three of these drugs were found to improve patient survival rates and of these, two only increased it by less than two months.

THAT's the part that gets me.

If it doesn't work, it shouldn't be prescribed, and it shouldn't be bankrupting families to pay for what is basically a placebo.

Sometimes, like with the cancer meds my dad is on, they can't garrantee to increase lifespan but they can and do often improve your quality of life for the time you have left.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Cancer Doctors Protest 'Astronomical' Drug Costs

With some new, potentially lifesaving cancer drugs costing up to $138,000 a year, about 120 leading cancer specialists have joined forces in an unusual protest aimed at getting pharmaceutical companies to cut prices.

Charging high prices for drugs cancer patients need to survive is like “profiteering” from a natural disaster by jacking up prices for food and other necessities, leading cancer doctors and researchers from around the world contend in a new paper published in Blood, the journal of the American Society of Hematology.

Of 12 new cancer drugs that received FDA approval last year, 11 of them cost in excess of $100,000 a year—prices that the specialists attack as “astronomical,” “unsustainable,” and maybe even immoral. What’s more, only three of these drugs were found to improve patient survival rates and of these, two only increased it by less than two months, according to the Washington Post.

Some of the specialists who joined the protest were inspired by the doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) who refused to use a new colon cancer drug called Zaltrap because it cost more than twice as much ($11,063 on average for one month of treatment) as another drug (Avastin) without improving outcomes.

Full Article: http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/cancer-doctors-protest-astronomical-drug-costs

So the drug companies are charging OUTRAGEOUS prices, and the drugs DON'T WORK??

The drug companies are becoming like snake oil salesmen!

ARE becoming like snake oil? It's been that way for a long time. A relative of mine is a rep and she makes a killing (no pun intended) on pimping out meds. What is really sad is I googled her name one day and there are websites where her employees (who worked under her when she was a district manager) saying how horrible she was to work with and how she BULLIED her reps and had them LIE and cover up drug studies. Now she is a rep again as part of the business restructuring. I've only seen her once in the last 10+ years. I am repulsed by knowing what she does. She is thrilled by the income, not by what her meds are suppose to do to help sick people.

What is sad is a friend of mine has MS and has been very sick for a long time (20+ years, DX in high school) and her dad got cancer and he lived 10 years while fighting the disease. They were extremely well off and my friend with MS had hoped for an inheritance to help cover the costs of in-home care she would need, but most of the money was sucked dry and the step mom took what was left and my friend has struggled as a result.

 

[rainwood]

Pharmaceutical companies should be able to recoup the R & D costs they actually incur, but the prices of many of the specific drugs in question aren't identified or limited to recouping those costs. The specific drug that led to the protest (Gleevec) was actually discovered in a program funded with federal money and the scientist who created it had to persuade the drug company to bring it to market. Now they make $4 billion a year off that one drug. Four billion dollars. From a pill that is the difference between life and death for people with that form of leukemia. The price went up to $100,000 per year, up from $40,000 just a few years ago even though it's not a new drug so no new R & D. And that same drug costs half as much in Canada and European countries with single payer systems where the government can negotiate a more reasonable price.

There's something seriously wrong with that scenario. I applaud those doctors brave enough to raise their voices in protest. It needs to happen more often.

 

[perry]

I personally use Xolair which cost about $35,000 per year for allergy/asthma control that has been on the market for about a decade. In my case this drug is a real miracle drug. Its almost like flipping a switch on how I feel and what I can accomplish without living in an allergen free bubble. Slow - sluggish - barely able to hold a job to active - vibrant - highly employable. Even then its only 50% effective in the worst pollen periods. But, wow. So some of these drugs work wonders for some people.

But, it is not just the cost of the drug. Here in the US drug companies are liable for medical + lifestyle cost lawsuits and settlements forever (many countries in the world limit how long a drug company can be sued for these cost, or limit the awards). Thus, drug cost in the US must not only cover the cost of development - but also the cost of lawsuits (and legal fees associated with lawsuits).

I use another drug that is no longer available in the US marketplace (at all). I can buy this from overseas from a pharmacy in another fully developed country at about 1/2 the cost of when it was available in the US. That price difference is really the legal cost difference of operating in the US vs the other country.

Legal cost are also a big part of other medical care in the US. I am not against being able to sue the drug (and other companies); DR's, etc, but I do wish the US would institute some kind of screening on the award levels along the line of: Gross incompetence/mistake - no limits. Minor/common mistakes - Modest limits. Issues within ordinary care and within reason of the statistical issues for the procedure/drug - no award. That would probably cut the legal cost associated with drugs and medical treatment within the US by at least half - and perhaps 2/3.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[kenny]

I have a good friend who works in clinical trials for new drugs or new uses for old drugs.

Before they launch a study they'll have a conference to explain the protocol.
Doctors and coordinators from around the country fly in.
These are usually held at hotels like a Ritz Carlton where buffet tables overflow with lobster, caviar etc.

The whole industry is dripping with money.

But then, maybe that gravy train is the incentive needed to produce new drugs.

 

[perry]

Kenny:

Any business that is making money holds their conventions in similar hotels. I was at one last weekend.

As far as the buffet table. Lobster is not that much extra (just an extra 5% or so) and even caviar not much extra as well. The hotels charge so much to set up a buffet table - regardless of the quality of the food; and then have additional charges for higher levels of food.

Dinner meals are a bit different- there can be a substantial difference between chicken and steak and lobster depending on the quality of the steak and lobster.

I would also wager that in fact it takes treating the Drs very nice to get some of them to cooperate. Drs tend to have big egos - and typically expect the best. Far more money will be spent on providing other services to the Drs at the conventions than the food. That might be a round of golf, it might be providing an escort for the Dr (which is not done as openly or as often as it was in the past - but is still done on a case by case basis).

Overall - the cost of the convention hotel is very very minor compared to the overall cost of doing a trial (which is a multi-million dollar affair). The cost of good food only adds a thousand or so which is trivial in the overall schema of things.

Have a great day,

Perry

 

[rosetta]

Hmm, as a cancer doc who prescribes these drugs, I'd like to make a few points

1. It takes millions to develop a drug, even before you reach marketing. If pharma doesn't make a profit, you don't get a drug.

2. Most cancer drugs will give small survival benefits. But I can categorically state that once it's YOU staring down the barrel of a gun, 2 months sounds like a good deal. Not for everyone, but I know that I don't know what I would do in that situation myself.

3. Pharma companies in the UK are no longer allowed to even give you a pen with a drug logo on it, let alone lobster dinners. This is obviously in stark contrast to the US.

4. A sweeping statement like doctors have big egos is frankly both offensive and idiotic. I also don't think all lawyers are pathological liars, all accountants are boring or all car salesman are theives.

5. I spend my free time writing multiple page applications appealing for funding to supply my patients with very expensive cancer meds. I argue their cases in meetings. When they are refused, I appeal. When they are refused again, I appeal again. Im the person who has to tell them they were refused. I assure you, this is not a pleasant task, especially when the patient is sitting in front of you surrounded by their families with the last sliver of hope in their eyes.

6. We don't have unlimited resources, but healthcare allocation is very, very hard and how much a life is worth is phenomenally difficult to quantify.

I won't be coming back to this thread so please debate among yourselves.

 

[OMG_AMG]

Hmm, as a cancer doc who prescribes these drugs, I'd like to make a few points

1. It takes millions to develop a drug, even before you reach marketing. If pharma doesn't make a profit, you don't get a drug.

2. Most cancer drugs will give small survival benefits. But I can categorically state that once it's YOU staring down the barrel of a gun, 2 months sounds like a good deal. Not for everyone, but I know that I don't know what I would do in that situation myself.

3. Pharma companies in the UK are no longer allowed to even give you a pen with a drug logo on it, let alone lobster dinners. This is obviously in stark contrast to the US.

4. A sweeping statement like doctors have big egos is frankly both offensive and idiotic. I also don't think all lawyers are pathological liars, all accountants are boring or all car salesman are theives.

5. I spend my free time writing multiple page applications appealing for funding to supply my patients with very expensive cancer meds. I argue their cases in meetings. When they are refused, I appeal. When they are refused again, I appeal again. Im the person who has to tell them they were refused. I assure you, this is not a pleasant task, especially when the patient is sitting in front of you surrounded by their families with the last sliver of hope in their eyes.

6. We don't have unlimited resources, but healthcare allocation is very, very hard and how much a life is worth is phenomenally difficult to quantify.

I won't be coming back to this thread so please debate among yourselves.

^ Rosetta is correct on all counts

I work for the biotech company that developed and produced drugs such as Avastin and Xolair mentioned above, and you must keep in mind, that it takes A LOT of research and funding to bring a drug from its initial inception to clinical trials and ultimately to FDA approval. This involves MANY people working on a project and COUNTLESS hours in perfecting the drug.

I frown upon people who quickly jump to the conclusion that pharma companies are evil and all they care about is money. We also care about patients and making drugs available to patients w/ specific diseases who otherwise would have NO treatment. But of course, like any other company, profits are needed to keep the company running and new products coming out.

Sorry, but nothing in life is free. There is no free lunch; someone always ends up paying.