• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It appears death panels are back in Obama healthcare.

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


A decision to rescind endorsement of the drug would reignite the highly charged debate over US health care reform and how much the state should spend on new and expensive treatments.

Avastin, the world’s best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Here we go again.

Cost simply has to be taken into account when analyzing the benefits of a drug. Combine a cost of 'on average' $83,000 to treat people in this late-stage cancer by its being found to only extend life by one month can only mean that pharma's getting rich. That last month? It's going to be hell anyway.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here we go again.

Cost simply has to be taken into account when analyzing the benefits of a drug. Combine a cost of 'on average' $83,000 to treat people in this late-stage cancer by its being found to only extend life by one month can only mean that pharma's getting rich. That last month? It's going to be hell anyway.

It's not the govt's job to determine that value for us by removing FDA approval for drugs. If I want to spend $8000 for a drug that may or may not extend my life for a month, that's my business, not theirs.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here we go again.

Cost simply has to be taken into account when analyzing the benefits of a drug. Combine a cost of 'on average' $83,000 to treat people in this late-stage cancer by its being found to only extend life by one month can only mean that pharma's getting rich. That last month? It's going to be hell anyway.

That is where we are at though.

Most of the major things that increase life expectancy have been done.
(Nutrition, work place safety, etc.)

Until a technological break through happens, we're stuck with slowly increasing life expectancy through medications and treatments that may only do it one month at a time.

The FDA shouldn't be approving or disapproving drugs based on cost effectiveness.
It will start to stagnate us.
 
Last edited:

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This shows Obama care will be no different than insurance companies. and the government will decide what care you get and if your life is worth spending the money. We are seeing death panels that Obama and the democrats denied would happen more lies from Obama
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,077
Reaction score
28,100
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is where we are at though.

Most of the major things that increase life expectancy have been done.
(Nutrition, work place safety, etc.)

Until a technological break through happens, we're stuck with slowly increasing life expectancy through medications and treatments that may only do it one month at a time.

The FDA shouldn't be approving or disapproving drugs based on cost effectiveness.
It will start to stagnate us.

The govt is great at stagnating innovation through regulation.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,385
Reaction score
12,179
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's not the govt's job to determine that value for us by removing FDA approval for drugs. If I want to spend $8000 for a drug that may or may not extend my life for a month, that's my business, not theirs.

Actually it is your HMO and insurance company's .. and they would most likely also say no.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It's not the govt's job to determine that value for us by removing FDA approval for drugs. If I want to spend $8000 for a drug that may or may not extend my life for a month, that's my business, not theirs.

Fine. Spend your money. But not mine.

That is where we are at though. Most of the major things that increase life expectancy have been done. (Nutrition, work place safety, etc.) Until a technological break through happens, we're stuck with slowly increasing life expectancy through medications and treatments that may only do it one month at a time. The FDA shouldn't be approving or disapproving drugs based on cost effectiveness. It will start to stagnate us.

I'm not sure that's where we are. Pharma is profit-motivated -- not quality-of-life motivated -- strictly the bottom line. Believe me, Harry, extending someone's life by a month makes no sense -- for the family, for the patient, or for society as a whole. It's, as usual, all about the money.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm not sure that's where we are. Pharma is profit-motivated -- not quality-of-life motivated -- strictly the bottom line. Believe me, Harry, extending someone's life by a month makes no sense -- for the family, for the patient, or for society as a whole. It's, as usual, all about the money.

What does it matter if they are profit motivated?
That is how things get done.
Most problems don't get solved with warm fuzzy feelings.

Whether we like or not, the biggest advances in humanity have been done with free enterprise.
Not burgeoning, centralized bodies making decisions for you.
 
Last edited:

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually it is your HMO and insurance company's .. and they would most likely also say no.

Of course they'll say no if the govt forbids the drug approval via the FDA.

Fine. Spend your money. But not mine.
Can't. The FDA removed approval for the drug.

And, this whole "spend your money not mine" is the whole ****ing reason why people don't want public healthcare. THIS is precisely the reason. They will put a price on everyone's head. They already DO.

I'm not sure that's where we are. Pharma is profit-motivated -- not quality-of-life motivated -- strictly the bottom line. Believe me, Harry, extending someone's life by a month makes no sense -- for the family, for the patient, or for society as a whole. It's, as usual, all about the money.
It's not anyone's place to determine that but the patient. Most assuredly not the government's job. Which is why so many of us oppose govt provided healthcare. Because THEN is will become their job to determine if we're worthy of living any longer.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,855
Reaction score
10,286
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If one references the actual report, one finds nothing to do with so-called "death panels." Instead, the FDA explained with respect to its findings on Avastin (Bevacizumab):

Based on a mature analysis, there was no improvement in overall survival...

Although the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel resulted in a significant improvement in PFS, this did not translate into an improvement in overall survival. The review team did not have confidence in the PFS results because baseline or PFS-determining radiographic scans were missing in 10% of the patients and 34% of the patients were not followed until an IRRC-determined PFS event or the end of the study. In addition, there was a high rate of discordance (50%) between investigator and independent review determined PFS events. Toxicity was increased with the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel. There was a 20% higher incidence of grade 3-5 toxicity, including unique toxicities attributed to bevacizumab, and a 1.7% treatment related death in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel arm.


Notes:
1. Bevacizumab = Avastin
2. PFS = progression free survival
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What does it matter if they are profit motivated?
That is how things get done. Most problems don't get solved with warm fuzzy feelings. Whether we like or not, the biggest advances in humanity have been done with free enterprise. Not burgeoning, centralized bodies making decisions for you.

I totally agree about free enterprise. I'm with ya'. But somebody's got to step up and say ENUF! when it comes to these "supposed" life-extending drugs. The push-down marketing strategy pharma uses is disgraceful. "Ask your doctor about...." ads in print and on TV. "Here, buy this new brand-name drug instead of the generic one your doctor's been prescribing. We've added aspirin to ours."

I think once a person has seen first-hand these supposed life-extending treatments, they have a better handle on the whole debate.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I totally agree about free enterprise. I'm with ya'. But somebody's got to step up and say ENUF! when it comes to these "supposed" life-extending drugs. The push-down marketing strategy pharma uses is disgraceful. "Ask your doctor about...." ads in print and on TV. "Here, buy this new brand-name drug instead of the generic one your doctor's been prescribing. We've added aspirin to ours."

We certainly need more discriminating consumers but I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

I think once a person has seen first-hand these supposed life-extending treatments, they have a better handle on the whole debate.

My grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer in her late 70's and lived to her early 80's.
Now from a cost effectiveness stand point, they should of provided no treatment because she was elderly.

That is the pure cost effectiveness of it.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Of course they'll say no if the govt forbids the drug approval via the FDA.


Can't. The FDA removed approval for the drug.
If your doctor asks that the drug be allowed, it can be used. It's a "process," but it can happen.

And, this whole "spend your money not mine" is the whole ****ing reason why people don't want public healthcare. THIS is precisely the reason. They will put a price on everyone's head. They already DO.

Are you naive enough to believe that insurance companies haven't been making these decisions? Medicare is government-run. My mom's on it. She's 83. She gets the finest medical care science has to offer -- no holds barred.

It's not anyone's place to determine that but the patient. Most assuredly not the government's job. Which is why so many of us oppose govt provided healthcare. Because THEN is will become their job to determine if we're worthy of living any longer.

The patient knows jack. The patient is led along by the nose to the decision the doctor thinks is best. And very often, the patient isn't even given the unbiased facts to make an unbiased decision.

If one references the actual report, one finds nothing to do with so-called "death panels." Instead, the FDA explained with respect to its findings on Avastin (Bevacizumab):

Based on a mature analysis, there was no improvement in overall survival...

Although the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel resulted in a significant improvement in PFS, this did not translate into an improvement in overall survival. The review team did not have confidence in the PFS results because baseline or PFS-determining radiographic scans were missing in 10% of the patients and 34% of the patients were not followed until an IRRC-determined PFS event or the end of the study. In addition, there was a high rate of discordance (50%) between investigator and independent review determined PFS events. Toxicity was increased with the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel. There was a 20% higher incidence of grade 3-5 toxicity, including unique toxicities attributed to bevacizumab, and a 1.7% treatment related death in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel arm.


Notes:
1. Bevacizumab = Avastin
2. PFS = progression free survival

Please, Donald, do not try to derail this emotional topic with facts.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've hated the ****ing FDA every since they pulled my Vioxx. The ****ers. The more I hear about what they do, the more of a waste of govt money I think they are.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If your doctor asks that the drug be allowed, it can be used. It's a "process," but it can happen.
Depends on what restrictions the FDA puts in place.

Are you naive enough to believe that insurance companies haven't been making these decisions? Medicare is government-run. My mom's on it. She's 83. She gets the finest medical care science has to offer -- no holds barred.
Insurance companies only make decisions about what they will pay for.
And don't even get me started on Medicare. My time as a medical professional makes me gag at the "quality of care" medicaid and medicare patients receive. Not to mention the rampant abuse of the system and the waste of money.

The patient knows jack. The patient is led along by the nose to the decision the doctor thinks is best. And very often, the patient isn't even given the unbiased facts to make an unbiased decision.
Their life, their body, their decision. Despite your assumptions of their intelligence. Your attitude is exactly why we shouldn't have govt run healthcare. Take the choice away from the patient because they're too ****ing stupid to make decisions for themselves. Lovely.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Depends on what restrictions the FDA puts in place.

Yes, of course it does. What other system would you have in place? "I can use whatever I want for whatever condition I want, and my insurance company has to pay for it." Really? No, I mean, really?

And don't even get me started on Medicare. My time as a medical professional makes me gag at the "quality of care" medicaid and medicare patients receive. Not to mention the rampant abuse of the system and the waste of money.

I repeat. My mom is on Medicare and she gets the finest medical treatment available today. Rampant abuse, yeppers. Waste of money, yeppers. Fix that.

Their life, their body, their decision. Despite your assumptions of their intelligence. Your attitude is exactly why we shouldn't have govt run healthcare. Take the choice away from the patient because they're too ****ing stupid to make decisions for themselves. Lovely.

Ridiculous. People have noooo idea what treatments are effective...what the side effects are...they are led merrily on their way by their healthcare providers. They're not stupid. They're just not doctors. Or scientists.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, of course it does. What other system would you have in place? "I can use whatever I want for whatever condition I want, and my insurance company has to pay for it." Really? No, I mean, really?
I don't give a **** what insurance pays for, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is having access. Pulling approval may or may not prevent access, I don't know in this particular case. But I do know that the FDA *can* and has prevented access to certain drugs.

I repeat. My mom is on Medicare and she gets the finest medical treatment available today. Rampant abuse, yeppers. Waste of money, yeppers. Fix that.
I can tell you from experience that when we brought Medicaid/Medicare recipients to the ER, they were not given "the best care". Lifesaving care? Absolutely. But "the best care"? Absolutely not. Because the docs knew what Medicaid and Medicare would and wouldn't pay for and they based their treatments on that. It was absurd.

Ridiculous. People have noooo idea what treatments are effective...what the side effects are...they are led merrily on their way by their healthcare providers. They're not stupid. They're just not doctors. Or scientists.
SOME people don't. But regardless, it is THEIR body, THEIR life, and THEIR choice to make. No one elses. If they make that choice in ignorance, that's their problem. If they make an informed decision, even better. Still their choice.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Of course they'll say no if the govt forbids the drug approval via the FDA.


Can't. The FDA removed approval for the drug.

And, this whole "spend your money not mine" is the whole ****ing reason why people don't want public healthcare. THIS is precisely the reason. They will put a price on everyone's head. They already DO.


It's not anyone's place to determine that but the patient. Most assuredly not the government's job. Which is why so many of us oppose govt provided healthcare. Because THEN is will become their job to determine if we're worthy of living any longer.

probably this drug would have been disapproved anyway. only 17 thousand women receive it, and it's clearly not effective. it only prevents the disease from advancing for less than month. it doesn't cure it. why should the gov't pay for a drug that's not effective? why does this have anything to do with "obama care"? it doesn't. drugs are approved and disapproved every day. if you want to use the drug, you can pay for it.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't give a **** what insurance pays for, that's irrelevant. What's relevant is having access. Pulling approval may or may not prevent access, I don't know in this particular case. But I do know that the FDA *can* and has prevented access to certain drugs.

Yes, and apparently you would have the FDA stay out of the review process and just let "us" decide. Again I say, really?

I can tell you from experience that when we brought Medicaid/Medicare recipients to the ER, they were not given "the best care". Lifesaving care? Absolutely. But "the best care"? Absolutely not. Because the docs knew what Medicaid and Medicare would and wouldn't pay for and they based their treatments on that. It was absurd.

If what you say is true, then the doctors were at fault for not prescribing the best treatment. Now, if you're talking "overkill," that's something else. If you're talking "triage," that's something else. Example please.

SOME people don't. But regardless, it is THEIR body, THEIR life, and THEIR choice to make. No one elses. If they make that choice in ignorance, that's their problem. If they make an informed decision, even better. Still their choice.

"I want to take that drug. I don't care if it works or not. It's my decision." Ridiculous. Patients aren't doctors. They are spoon-fed information by their healthcare professionals to lead them to the doctor's decision. That's the facts.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
probably this drug would have been disapproved anyway. only 17 thousand women receive it, and it's clearly not effective. it only prevents the disease from advancing for less than month. it doesn't cure it. why should the gov't pay for a drug that's not effective? why does this have anything to do with "obama care"? it doesn't. drugs are approved and disapproved every day. if you want to use the drug, you can pay for it.

Someone else trying to derail this thread with facts. How dare you?
 
Top Bottom