The Cost Of Living...
From BBC News
Watchdog 'to reject cancer drug'
Bone cancer patients in England are expected to be denied a life-extending drug, which is available in Scotland.
Patients and health charities have condemned the proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Velcade slows the advance of myeloma - cancer of bone marrow plasma cells.
Around 4,000 people are diagnosed with myeloma in the UK each year.
A trial last year showed Velcade could extend the life expectancy of a patient by an average of six months more than standard treatment. Treatment costs about £18,000 per patient.
The drug was approved for use in Scotland in 1994, where it is thought to be used as a last resort.
The Daily Mail says it has seen a leaked ruling, which says the drug is more clinically effective than chemotherapy but is not regarded as "cost effective".
My first instinct is, that if I had the chance of dying from bone cancer today, or spending another six months on this earth with the people I love, I would certainly consider it to be 'cost effective'.
The usual argument rolled out in these type of cases is the old chestnut of 'other treatments/patients suffering' if funds are spent on the expensive drug in question. This is a completely spurious argument. The bottom line is, this is all about the bottom line.
Actual production costs of pretty much any drug, (once it's been researched which is an expensive process) are very low. These high costs that get quoted are about drugs companies, some of the richest organisations on the planet, milking all the cash they can back on a newly discovered product, as close to the point of discovery as possible. They invariably make a profit in the long term.
If they spent more time thinking of the long game, instead of wanting to grab cash back as soon as possible, perhaps someone might get to spend a little longer with their child, or a few precious moments more with the one they love.
And you can't put a price on that.
Watchdog 'to reject cancer drug'
Bone cancer patients in England are expected to be denied a life-extending drug, which is available in Scotland.
Patients and health charities have condemned the proposals by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
Velcade slows the advance of myeloma - cancer of bone marrow plasma cells.
Around 4,000 people are diagnosed with myeloma in the UK each year.
A trial last year showed Velcade could extend the life expectancy of a patient by an average of six months more than standard treatment. Treatment costs about £18,000 per patient.
The drug was approved for use in Scotland in 1994, where it is thought to be used as a last resort.
The Daily Mail says it has seen a leaked ruling, which says the drug is more clinically effective than chemotherapy but is not regarded as "cost effective".
My first instinct is, that if I had the chance of dying from bone cancer today, or spending another six months on this earth with the people I love, I would certainly consider it to be 'cost effective'.
The usual argument rolled out in these type of cases is the old chestnut of 'other treatments/patients suffering' if funds are spent on the expensive drug in question. This is a completely spurious argument. The bottom line is, this is all about the bottom line.
Actual production costs of pretty much any drug, (once it's been researched which is an expensive process) are very low. These high costs that get quoted are about drugs companies, some of the richest organisations on the planet, milking all the cash they can back on a newly discovered product, as close to the point of discovery as possible. They invariably make a profit in the long term.
If they spent more time thinking of the long game, instead of wanting to grab cash back as soon as possible, perhaps someone might get to spend a little longer with their child, or a few precious moments more with the one they love.
And you can't put a price on that.
posted by Stevie at 1:15 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home