- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
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.
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.
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.
The govt is great at stagnating innovation through regulation.
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.
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.
Actually it is your HMO and insurance company's .. and they would most likely also say no.
Can't. The FDA removed approval for the drug.Fine. Spend your money. But not mine.
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.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.
Actually it is your HMO and insurance company's .. and they would most likely also say no.
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.
If your doctor asks that the drug be allowed, it can be used. It's a "process," but it can happen.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.
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
Depends on what restrictions the FDA puts in place.If your doctor asks that the drug be allowed, it can be used. It's a "process," but it can happen.
Insurance companies only make decisions about what they will pay for.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.
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.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.
Please, Donald, do not try to derail this emotional topic with facts.
Depends on what restrictions the FDA puts in place.
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.
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.
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, 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 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.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.
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.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.
It appears death panels are back in Obama healthcare.
US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels' - Telegraph
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?