The Return of Death Panels

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I want to make a comment. My husband was dx with Renel Cell Carcinoma on Feb 9 2009 Drs started him on Torisel 1 time a week for 8 weeks. Took a ct scan and was told that everything was growing so started him on sutent and dr wanted him to start taking liquid morphine for pain. Insurance co said no to morphine at 100.00 a bottle But paid 3 or 4 thousand dollars for 28 pills. I do not understand their thinking. I lost my husbsnd to R.C.C. Oct 14 2009. Thank you for letting me vent. Tamara

Tamara Herbstritt of CA 2:04PM November 18, 2010

My family and I have ALWAYS had health insurance. Long before "preexisting conditions".
There has ALWAYS been safety nets for the poor. Namely MEDICAID and MEDICARE. Hospitals will help you with the paperwork...

Bill Hedges of MO 12:15PM November 18, 2010

If you have preexisting conditions or can't afford health insurance you may need to decide whether to put your family in the street or use all your life savings for treatment or expensive tests. Sounds like a death panel of one to me.
There has got to be a better, more humane way than survival of the financially fit -it's just not Obamacare.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 11:46AM November 18, 2010

1. “I am surprised that no one has even batted an eye at the pharmaceutical companies charging thousands of dollars per dose.”.
Done ALL the time.
2. “These same companies sell the same drugs for much less in countries with government caps on cost and are still profitable”.
If every Country had caps not all drugs would be profitable. Result would be less R & D, especially for problems with few who would take the drug.
3. “What profit margin is acceptable when the cost prohibits the saving of a life?”
What profit is acceptable to save a life ? Will patient sign waver & REFUSE hiring lawyers and suing for bad reactions and death ? Unfortunately that happens even with established drugs, let alone new ones.
4. “Wouldn't it make more sense to say we will encourage research by allowing pharmaceutical companies to hold exclusive rights longer, but the cost has to come down?
See 4. Longer “exclusive rights ” extension is a possibility. Though $$$ billions in slow return for many small companies would cause many to fail. Big as well. Might stop many new companies from existing.

Bill Hedges of MO 11:05AM November 18, 2010

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG...
"Does a lobbyist have to be registered?"
"Since 1995, the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) has required individuals who are paid for lobbying at the federal level to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. Lobbying firms, self-employed lobbyists and organizations employing lobbyists must file regular reports of lobbying activity. "
http://dc.about.com/od/jobs/a/Lobbying.htm
Drug companies do "clinical trial". Part of process to get drugs approved. When you spend a $$$ billion for a drug research or more there is no guarantee it works or can be sold because of bad complications. Natural not all medicines work for each individual. Number of people that pill helps is another factor affecting cost. Add expected litigation. Each person has different reaction to drugs. There is a limited number of years to cope R & D expense and profit, including failed pills, before it goes generic...
Amgen has worked on a real weight loss pill/shot for decades. Called lipid. Fat elephants lose weight. No telling $$$ spent. Can not be approved. Yet.

Bill Hedges of MO 10:32AM November 18, 2010

I am surprised that no one has even batted an eye at the pharmaceutical companies charging thousands of dollars per dose. These same companies sell the same drugs for much less in countries with government caps on cost and are still profitable. What profit margin is acceptable when the cost prohibits the saving of a life? Wouldn't it make more sense to say we will encourage research by allowing pharmaceutical companies to hold exclusive rights longer, but the cost has to come down?
How many of the people that think it is unethical for the government to deny coverage on these fantastically priced drugs also feel government is wrong to provide basic coverage to all Americans because it is socialized medicine? Everyone seems to want it both ways. Don't charge me so that everyone can have basic care, but my family and I should be allowed what ever treatment is needed and I don't care who pays for it.

KimRex of IN 10:17AM November 18, 2010

Chris
This article appeared today in my Google Alerts for Sutent. What a clarifying article. I hope it gets picked up my the mainstream media.
I have now been using Sutent for over 2 and a half years- well past the median for people with advanced thyroid cancer. As you said, patients with cancer hope that their drugs last a long time and hope/assume that they can move to another drug once the current one stops working.
In the time I've been using Sutent, several new promising drugs are either in trial or can be used off label.
Patients also hope/assume that current research will lead to more breakthroughs, and if we can live long enough, we'll be able to benefit from new therapies.
I understand that this is expensive for society but given the increasing number of cancer patients, it seems that we should be able to afford the research that will allow people to live longer lives.
Once again, thanks for writing this.
Rick

Rick of MA 10:11AM November 18, 2010

CER formed the basis for drug rationing in the United Kingdom (after its citizens were told this research would never be used in this fashion). Now, decades later, the tide is turning in the UK, as its citizens recognize that this abuse will no longer be tolerated.
For years, the Kidney Cancer Association has helped patients in countries where medical care is rationed to come to the US, where state-of-the-art care is available. Now, it appears we're following the same path that led to rationing in the UK.
Apparently, our bureaucrats and politicians aren't very well informed, are they? Pandering for votes at the expense of the health of citizens isn't just a poor choice--it's unethical.

Bill Bro of IL 9:26AM November 18, 2010

Worse that government bureaucrats, who for the most part try to make good public policy; worse than insurance companies, who make decisions based on the profit to their stockholders, worse than drug companies, who want to sell as many $5-6,000 a month doses as possible. The worse decision-makers are partisan lobbyists, trying to present arguments while being paid by their unnamed clients.
I have known dozens of kidney cancer survivors who have bravely faced one drug after another, some surviving, some not. All showed a strength of character that is inspiring.
I have know kidney cancer patients who had no insurance nor personal wealth to afford the expensive drugs. How did they get them? Either they went on a clinical trial, some of which are sponsored by the US Government or they had their drugs donated by the pharmaceutical companies who developed the drugs they needed to stay alive.
Cancer is a complicated disease. Analyzing it with glib political platitudes does the readers a disservice.

Steve Kazan of CA 12:27AM November 18, 2010

"Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon
Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide"
"The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay."
"What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50."
"It's challenging because health care is very expensive, but that's not the real essence of our priority list," said Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of for Oregon's Health Policy and Research staff.
"We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer's dollars," she said. "It may be expensive, but if it does wonders, we cover it."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Bill Hedges of MO 9:29PM November 17, 2010