Herceptin funding increase turned down

[magicfairy]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4647220a11.html
Pharmac has decided not to increase its funding of the breast cancer fighting drug Herceptin.

The government's drug buying agency funds treatment of Herceptin for early stage HER-2 breast cancer for nine weeks, rejecting calls from clinicians and women's health groups to fund it for 12 months.


Bastards - its all about the money - not saving lives.

[Mr Merde]

.....


Bastards - its all about the money - not saving lives.

Oh so very true.

[Nasty]

So true there Magic ... the limitations that they have put on the use of the drug are very unrealistic ... the money excuse is that the lives saved through this are just not worth it. Kinda makes me real angry!!

[007XX]

Fark, I can't believe it!!!

That is completely ridiculous.

[rainman]

But ...

However, Mr Brougham said today: "I want to be absolutely clear; this decision is not about the cost of Herceptin. This decision rests solely on the science and our assessment, our confidence, around whether or not funding 12 months treatment with Herceptin would produce additional health benefits."

He said it was the hardest decision he had ever been involved in.

"It's a very complex area and fraught with a lot of emotion and in my 11 years at Pharmac I have not been involved in anything more arduous."

I appreciate this is a tough decision and I'm glad I didn't have to make it - I'm not sure what approach I'd take, even. But they guy is out-and-out saying it is not about the money. So, do you have any basis for calling him a liar?

[martybabe]

But ...



I appreciate this is a tough decision and I'm glad I didn't have to make it - I'm not sure what approach I'd take, even. But they guy is out-and-out saying it is not about the money. So, do you have any basis for calling him a liar?

Well surely if it's not about the money, then funding it for 12 months won't matter will it. The only conclusion I read here, is the results don't warrant the expense. So it is about the money then.

Not trying to be inflammatory here mate, I wouldn't wanna make that call either but it's easy for me, these are peoples mothers, wives, sisters, daughters here they should be given every chance imo.

[pete376403]

Surely there must be some sort of compromise between 9 weeks and 52 weeks - do a 6 month trial.
And how come they fully fund that drug for women whose cancer is terminal - surely its pointless at that stage

[raftn]

Government departments at there best....just leaves me speechless sometimes!

[98tls]

No doubt theres a major hangi or similar in Northland that requires funding and hey whats cancer compared to that.

[rainman]

Well surely if it's not about the money, then funding it for 12 months won't matter will it. The only conclusion I read here, is the results don't warrant the expense. So it is about the money then.

No, he says there's uncertainty about the clinical difference between the 9 week treatment and 12 months.

Hey, healthcare is the pointy end of the real world, it's always about compromises, about getting clinical value for what you spend. What if the decision is: spend more on herceptin but then have to spend less on, say, alzheimers treatments, or heart disease, in order to stay within your budget?

Or what if it's spend the money on herceptin but forego the tax cuts that everyone is making a big noise about?

[rainman]

Government departments at there best....just leaves me speechless sometimes!

Anyone ever ask the manufacturers of herceptin how much they're making out of it? Or if they could find a way to make it cheaper? I mean (quite seriously), the value of a life is far more important than profits, right?

[RantyDave]

Anyone ever ask the manufacturers of herceptin how much they're making out of it? Or if they could find a way to make it cheaper? I mean (quite seriously), the value of a life is far more important than profits, right?

The argument, and it's a strong one IMHO, is that the obscene profits are needed to incentivise development of new medicines.

So, the cost to develop a new drug (including getting it licensed for use on people) is of the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. Very almost all of the initially promising drugs don't make it to the end for one reason or another. Once they are approved you get, IIRC, five years before the patent expires and any man and his dog can make it. Prozac, for instance, is actually a substance called Fluoxetine. So, a small opportunity to make money and a need to make billions of dollars otherwise it just doesn't work.

And, no, the value of a life is not more important than profits. These companies are owned by shareholders, none of who give the first flying fuck about the value of a life.

Dave

[98tls]

Imagine how much money would become available for such things if we simply "made families work for themselves"

[MisterD]

$25Million a year. That's all it will cost for the 350 women per year affected by the particularly aggressive form of breast cancer Herceptin fights.

Your lovely caring goverment would rather piss $1.5 BILLION up the wall on a trainset to play with....another reason (as if one were needed) to vote the shambolic c**ts out onto the dole queue.

[Ocean1]

What if the decision is: spend more on herceptin but then have to spend less on, say, alzheimers treatments, or heart disease, in order to stay within your budget?

That's precicely what the decision is. No matter what the budget is, no matter how generous, there will always be a procedure or medicine that we can't afford. The choice will always be "If we fund this then we can't fund a medicine which provides better returns for the same cost".

You might look at increasing the health budget, (and we have, it's a higher percentage of GDP than ever before), but there'll still be things we can't afford, there always will be.