Another cancer drug too dear for Britain

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • gmb45
    Admin Assistant
    • Nov 2008
    • 7538

    #1

    Another cancer drug too dear for Britain

    they got enough ~~~~ing money for asylum seekers tho


    Bowel cancer victims denied life-prolonging care that's free in Europe

    Bowel cancer sufferers are to be denied a life-prolonging drug on the NHS which is available to patients across Europe and beyond.

    Trials show Avastin can extend life by almost two years.
    But the Government's rationing body, Nice, says it is not cost-effective.

    Bowel cancer sufferers will be denied the life-prolonging Avastin drug because Nice says it's not cost-effective

    In what has been dubbed 'passport prescribing', Britain does not allow routine use of the drug while patients in virtually all other EU countries get the drug paid for.

    France, Germany, Italy and Scandinavian nations, as well as Australia and Canada, all meet the cost of treatment.
    Last week Nice rejected the use of a liver cancer drug on the NHS.
    Around 35,000 Britons develop bowel cancer each year, of which 4,000-5,000 with advanced cancer could benefit from the drug.
    Avastin, also known as bevacizumab, costs around ?18,000 for a course of ten months' treatment given as intravenous infusion with chemotherapy.

    The price is similar to that in other countries.
    But the complex formula used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which looks at quality of life and overall cost effectiveness, says the annual cost is ?36,000.
    35,000 Britons develop bowel cancer each year, of which 4,000-5,000 could benefit from Avastin

    This breaks the maximum limit set by Nice of ?30,000 - a figure which has not changed in ten years despite inflation.
    Although the manufacturer Roche devised a subsidy scheme to reduce an original Nice estimate from ?62,000 in an attempt to get it approved, this was not good enough.
    Nice's decision, which is preliminary, puts Britain in the same category as Latvia, Poland, Albania and Macedonia in not paying for sufferers to use the drug.
    Last night patient groups and experts voiced their dismay.
    Kate Spall, of the Pamela Northcott Fund, which assists cancer patients denied new therapies, said: 'This is another bad day for cancer patients and another good day for accountants.'
    Professor Will Steward, of the Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine at Leicester University, also said he was disappointed.
    'Having Avastin would bring new hope to the many patients for whom this offers a proven increased chance of living longer with a better quality of life,' he said.
    Dr Rob Glynne Jones, chief medical adviser of the Bowel Cancer UK charity, called for Nice, the manufacturer and the Department of Health to find a compromise that would allow the drug to be used.
    'The clinical efficacy of bevacizumab and its benefit to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is well proven,' he said.

    Patients waiting for a decision on Avastin are forced to plead for special funding from local health bodies or hope that a trial of the drug is running in their area.
    Nice, which has been accused of spending more on spin than on evaluating drugs, has often been criticised for banning drugs from NHS use as too expensive.
    Last week it decided to reject NHS use of the liver cancer drug Nexavar, which gives patients six months' extra life. The decision is being appealed.


    The headquarters of Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche, where Avastin is manufactured. It costs around ?18,000 for a course of ten months' treatment

    It contrasts with the fast-tracking of the breast cancer drug Herceptin after pressure from patients and the intervention of the then Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt.
    Ironically, Avastin also treats breast cancer but its use on the NHS is in limbo until the bowel cancer issue is settled.
    Last year Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, called for greater flexibility between Nice and the pharmaceutical industry to make more treatments available to cancer patients.
    Bowel cancer patient Barbara Moss, 54, from Worcester, spoke at a Nice review last month about how Avastin had transformed her quality of life.

    She was given just five months to live when diagnosed with bowel cancer in November 2006, but is convinced the drug has kept her alive and in remission.


    Enlarge

    She fought to get back from the NHS almost ?14,000 sent on ancillary care, but had to pay ?9,000 for the drug itself.
    Yesterday she called on Nice to find a way to approve the use of the drug 'so that thousands can benefit from the drug like I did while avoiding financial hardship'.
    Avastin works by blocking the blood supply to the tumour, starving it of oxygen and nutrients. Once it has shrunk it can be surgically removed.
    Dr Carole Longson, director of the health technology evaluation centre at Nice, said its decision was preliminary.
    While it recognised that the drug 'may provide benefits in terms of clinical effectiveness', it concluded that 'the high cost of bevacizumab relative to the benefits it brings means that it is not a cost-effective use of NHS resources'.

    support mountain resue

    support digital-kaos here


    forum rules

    no keygens or torrents to be posted no autodata discussions

    pish pt walkers


  • bvilleuk
    DK Veteran
    • Aug 2009
    • 625

    #2
    Originally posted by gmb45
    they got enough ~~~~ing money for asylum seekers tho

    But the Government's rationing body, Nice, says it is not cost-effective.
    Of Course it's not cost effective -- let them all die to make more room for Immigrants..........

    The Elderly Over 60's should be all put down to save the Government money -- it's not important that we have contributed to the National Health Service all our lives !!

    When my G.P. Doctor asked me did I realise what it was costing the NHS for my Tablets I hit the roof......... exclaiming that I hadn't just flown in and expected it all for nothing and had paid Tax and National Insurance Contributions for 45 years...........

    It makes me mad.
    .
    .
    .
    WHAT DO I THINK OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT??
    .
    CAPITAL !!
    .
    BRING IT BACK...............
    .
    .

    Comment

    • chroma
      V.I.P. Member
      • Feb 2009
      • 1976

      #3
      Although bile they do kinda have a point.
      Im not saying the greedy bastards shouldnt fork over for someone whos paid his dues by any means, im just saying that drugs are seriously, stupidly, amoraly, expensive.

      The cost to produce vs the retail markup is insane.


      Big Pharm get away with daylight robbery, the irony is theyre in the business of helping people... just seems that some internal memo got messed up and replaced people with "the wealthy and affluent."

      That being said, if theres a treatment out there that can help someone whos paid in all his life then it should be provided without question.
      He who laughs last thinks slowest.

      Comment

      • gmb45
        Admin Assistant
        • Nov 2008
        • 7538

        #4
        dont matter if u loaded or skint these drugs should be available to all, those barstewards are playing god. END OF
        support mountain resue

        support digital-kaos here


        forum rules

        no keygens or torrents to be posted no autodata discussions

        pish pt walkers


        Comment

        • jasbo7
          V.I.P. Member
          • Nov 2008
          • 1432

          #5
          I will be attending Daldowie on Friday for my mates wife's funeral, she was 53. she had the last 8 months fighting cancer with drugs and all that goes with it, I'm sure she would have tried anything if it was available, maybe the government should look hard at getting these drugs made here...theres certainly enough people out of work to do it.

          Comment

          • chroma
            V.I.P. Member
            • Feb 2009
            • 1976

            #6
            Originally posted by jasbo7
            I will be attending Daldowie on Friday for my mates wife's funeral, she was 53. she had the last 8 months fighting cancer with drugs and all that goes with it, I'm sure she would have tried anything if it was available, maybe the government should look hard at getting these drugs made here...theres certainly enough people out of work to do it.
            It wouldnt be any cheaper, the company owns the patent and charges the manufacturers whatever they want to charge to use the formula, and its not like you can slightly "change the formula" to work around it because then the drug would have a completely different and untested effect.
            So instead of preventing a patient from coughing it now sterilizes his balls, or causes birth defects, etc.

            Drugs companies have us by the balls, of you find a way to manufacture a drug cheaper then big pharm just rubs its grubby hands and charges more to use the formula, prices stay unrealisticaly high and the patent holder makes a fortune from the sick and needy.
            He who laughs last thinks slowest.

            Comment

            • bvilleuk
              DK Veteran
              • Aug 2009
              • 625

              #7
              Originally posted by chroma
              stay unrealisticaly high and the patent holder makes a fortune from the sick and needy.
              It's disgusting.

              Someone ought to write a song and dedicate it to the Drug Companies......

              An apt title might be:

              "THE FOLKS WHO LIVE ON THE ILL"
              .
              .
              WHAT DO I THINK OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT??
              .
              CAPITAL !!
              .
              BRING IT BACK...............
              .
              .

              Comment

              • Raven
                Banned
                • Mar 2008
                • 748

                #8
                I've said it before and I'll say it again, the current government couldn't care less about it's people, why ? Because they're all about the money - is there any point in us being in the EU if what few benefits in being there for us don't actually apply to us, the people have zero say in this country and we stand for it it's ~~~~ing ridiculous.....but, why is this drug not being allowed here ? It's because there's more money in the drugs we already have which probably aren't nearly as good but they'll be cheaper to make which means more money for them. How much more of this bullcrap can the British people take ? how much crap like this has to happen before we finally take the hint and kick off ?!

                The government are there to make decisions on our behalf, with our assistance, not to tell us what's what and make decisions for us whether we like it or not and rob us blind. Which is exactly what Labor do. And people say the BNP are vile and nasty people....that's the biggest laugh of all that they say that with such venom and yet completely ignore Labor's antics....there comes a time where racist or not, British people have to do something about it and say we're not taking this crap anymore - and that's why the BNP is gaining a lot of votes. Because they are the only ones even looking like they'll do something about it. And while I may not agree with all of the BNP's policies and while Nick Griffin is a controversial person, one thing about him is that he has the balls to say publicly what the others are afraid to even bring up full stop, whether people like it or not, and to say publicly what people are really thinking behind closed doors and any politician that's honest enough to do that publicly and at great risk to himself personally and who says bollocks to political correctness and to what the do gooding haters and hypocrites think of him, then that person has my respect and admiration. Because all politicians should tell it like it is and be honest, or to at least be real enough to say what they think, but next to none actually do.

                Nick Griffin's line on QT was a perfect example not that it helped him any on the night, when he said "you can't trust any politician" and that's brutally honest and he's right in what he said, and I respect him for that. Because I'm the same in that regard, I'll give it to people straight aswell whether they like what I have to say or not, because I don't care what haters and hypocrites think of me either. But I'm obviously not a politician.
                Last edited by Raven; 25 November, 2009, 16:05.

                Comment

                Working...