The stunning awesomeness of British health system, anti-cancer drug rejected (BBC)

[SigniferOne]

Liver cancer drug 'too expensive'

A drug that can prolong the lives of patients with advanced liver cancer has been rejected for use in the NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said the cost of Nexavar - about £3,000 a month - was "simply too high".

But Macmillan Cancer Support said the decision was "a scandal".

More than 3,000 people are diagnosed with liver cancer every year in the UK and their prognosis is generally poor.

Only about 20% of patients are alive one year after diagnosis, dropping to just 5% after five years.

'Disappointed'

Campaigner Kate Spall, who won the right to have two months of treatment for her mother, Pamela Northcott, in 2007, said it had prolonged her life by four-and-a-half "precious" months.

It had allowed her 58-year-old mother, from Dyserth in Denbighshire, "closure" and "peace", she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"The problem in Mum's case is it took a year for me to fight for the treatment, so we'll never know how well she could have done," she said.



Prof Jonathan Waxman: "I'm very unhappy about the way these decisions are made"
"We had extra time, which was very precious to us all, her symptoms were helped greatly. And, more importantly, for Mum it was a case of getting some closure and peace.

"The psychological feeling when a group of people decide that you cannot have a treatment that can help you is really devastating."

Cancer Research UK's chief clinician Peter Johnson said the decision was "enormously frustrating" because there was no doubt about the drug's effectiveness.

He said: "There's no alternative treatment and there are no other places for people to go. It is expensive, but the only issue is cost and the number of patients affected are quite few - there's probably only six or seven hundred patients a year."

Nexavar - also known as sorafenib - had already been rejected in Scotland, despite studies showing it could extend the life of a liver cancer patient by up to six months.

'Devastating disease'

The Scottish Medicines Consortium ruled that "the manufacturer's justification of the treatment's cost in relation to its benefit was not sufficient to gain acceptance".

Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE, agreed: "The price being asked by [the manufacturer] Bayer is simply too high to justify using NHS money which could be spent on better value cancer treatments."

And the group's clinical and public health director, Peter Littlejohns, added the drug was considered "just too expensive" by its advisory committees.



'NICE, on behalf of the the NHS, has to look at the cost-effectiveness of care.'
Nexavar is routinely offered to cancer patients elsewhere in the world, and Mike Hobday, head of campaigns at Macmillan Cancer Support, said he was "extremely disappointed" at NICE's decision.

"It is a scandal that the only licensed drug proven to significantly prolong the lives of people with this devastating disease has been rejected, leaving them with no treatment options," he said.

Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, said: "The decision to reject a treatment for advanced liver cancer is a huge blow for patients.

HAVE YOUR SAY There has to be a point when the NHS says no. It's sadly but simply unrealistic.
Simon Davenport, Norwich
Send us your comments "This is a treatment to extend life for people where all other options have run out.

"It is particularly hard for people with liver cancer given that treatments for many other advanced cancers have been given the green light by NICE.

"People with liver disease often face stigma and discrimination and sadly this decision feels like a further disadvantage to them."

Earlier this year, a government review of end-of-life treatment said NICE should give extra weight to drugs that could extend a patient's life.

The Department of Health said NICE was not ignoring that recommendation, but the NHS could not just pay for any drug at any cost.

BBC News - Liver cancer drug 'too expensive'
Please use quote tags and sources -- VP

[S.L.I.G]

ing disgusting. Socialism at its best.

[Tiberios]

ing disgusting. Socialism at its best.

lol, as if it has anything to do with socialism.

[Pickle_mole]

lol, as if it has anything to do with socialism.

what! it doenst?

[Ænema]

Wow. That's some epik failure.

/sigh

[Manco]

Not knowing the particulars of the NHS's ruling, I do think it's a bit wrong to blame the NHS for all. 3.000 pound per month is way too expensive, Bayer isn't exactly blame free here.

[Exarch]

med costs are rising these days cuz more and more ppl are getting older and getting sick (baby boomers)
and drug research is pretty expensive
it takes about 3-5 yrs to develop a drug and the costs that go into researching etc etc means companies want to get the moolah quick

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Everyone belong to everyone else.

But at least you are honest with yourselves in this your lives have a price tag, and you know where you stand.

Across the pond our government is trying to save money by increasing the recommended age for mammograms, and cutting the frequency in half. And to top it off they even want women to stop doing self examinations, less they find a problem soon enough to be treated.

[justicar5]

Everyone belong to everyone else.

But at least you are honest with yourselves in this your lives have a price tag, and you know where you stand.

Across the pond our government is trying to save money by increasing the recommended age for mammograms, and cutting the frequency in half. And to top it off they even want women to stop doing self examinations, less they find a problem soon enough to be treated.

and you belong to your health insurance company, who will do everything possible to avoid paying for anything so that they get a bigger bonus for not making a medical loss. The death panels are real and they are called insurance sales men.

[Ishoss]

So the British system sucks crap because they don't give treatment which costs 3000£ per month for free? The american system is better? You wouldn't get it for free in america either. And it's not like you can't pay for the treatment yourself if you can afford it, you got the freedom to choose that as well

[SigniferOne]

Um, since you're clearly framing this as American vs. British systems, isn't the British system still better because in America if you can't afford this you don't get it either?

Yeah, except in America you're more likely to afford it for not suffering under gargantuan taxes feeding a vast bureaucratic socialized healthcare system.

Plus a misguided US tort system forces doctors to raise prices which forces insurance companies to raise premiums. A simple tort reform would limit how much you could sue doctors for, which would cut costs by a major margin. In Britain or Canada pretty much no one is allowed to sue the NHS, because who can win against the omnipotent government? Thus they have the ultimate version of the tort reform; and the lower healthcare price results from that, rather than from them having the omni-cure which we call socialism.

In fact, in Britain you're more likely to be able to afford it yourself because there isn't an artificially inflated drugs industry or spiralling insurance premiums and the rest of your care can be covered by the NHS.

Yeah, except who are you to tell the drugs industry when their prices are 'inflated'? You are not their tyrant. They are free people just as you. Just because you want something they have does not mean you acquire the right to take it from them. That is the basics for how a free country works, I am sorry to educate you about that. Now because America is the only country which still respects this principle, practically only innovation that happens in the world, happens in America. And nearly all inventions which are made in the medical industry: life-saving drugs, new equipment, all that's done by the American companies, who yes, have to spend money competing, sending out advertisements, in short participating in all of the messy stuff of living in a free competing country. There is nothing more messy there than ballots, votes and counter-votes, yet I do not see you clamoring for the neat organization of absolute monarchy. And after American medical companies go through the rigors of simple living in a free country, what does Britain do with their inventions? It seizes them. It literally steals them, all of the medicine, all of the medical journals, all of the medical equipment. That is then called progress and lauded as an immense virtue of the Biritish health system.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yeah, except in America you're more likely to afford it for not suffering under gargantuan taxes feeding a vast bureaucratic socialized healthcare system.

You're less likely to afford it because of gargantuan insurance premiums feeding a corrupt and bloated insurance system - with the same level of taxation on lower income workers. There's never been a case in the UK of somebody going bankrupt through medical bills or dying unecessarily because they were poor, all too frequent occurances in the United States.

[SigniferOne]

You're less likely to afford it because of gargantuan insurance premiums feeding a corrupt and bloated insurance system - with the same level of taxation on lower income workers. There's never been a case in the UK of somebody going bankrupt through medical bills or dying unecessarily because they were poor, all too frequent occurances in the United States.

Insurance premiums are only high in a few cases. 87% of the American electorate is happy with their insurance plans. But the insurance is higher in the instances that it is mainly, like I said, because of a tort issue which I already said poses a problem. The only solution a socialized healthcare presents here is that it forces the litigant to sue none other than the government, which people are afraid to do and will be quickly clamped down if they still choose to.

Anyhow you didn't respond to the NHS stealing American medical innovation, which guess who pays for. That's right, American moms and dads, for its development. Guess who doesn't pay for it, but reaps the benefits like an abject thief? You'll answer that.

[Bovril]

I'm so angry that there is no private health insurance available in the UK like there is in the US and no one in the UK is allowed to buy drugs privately like in the US. What a terrible, terrible infringement on our freedoms.

[Azog 150]

Edit: Delete

[Stavroforos]

So the government should foot the 3,000 pound bill so that someone who is terminally ill can live another few days or weeks, despite the fact that they provide sufficient services for those last days anyway?

The scandal.

[Space Wolves]

There is fail, and there is epic fail, this deserves neither category because this is just that retarded

[Lovejoy]

Too bad they don't have a good social healthcare in England. Now the English people cant afford their meds just like Americans.

[Atlassmurf]

Woah, it doesn't cure cancer, it just prolongs the life of the sick for a few weeks or so.

So way to expensive. Except for bankers. But they can die.

[removeduser_487563287433]

BBC News - Liver cancer drug 'too expensive'
Please use quote tags and sources -- VP

Um, since you're clearly framing this as American vs. British systems, isn't the British system still better because in America if you can't afford this you don't get it either?