Skip to comments.ObamaCare Rationing Begins
Posted on 12/22/2010 6:12:55 PM PST by Kaslin
Medicine: The FDA has reversed its approval of a widely used cancer drug approved in Europe to treat breast cancer on the grounds it doesn't provide a "sufficient" benefit. Let the terminally ill and their doctors decide.
One of the blessings of blocking the omnibus spending bill was that it included $1 billion for the implementation of ObamaCare.
Yet the first effects are still being felt, the latest being the Food and Drug Administration's revoking of regulatory approval of Avastin to treat late-stage breast cancer.
The reason given by the FDA was that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." What risk? These women are dying.
The drug buys them precious time, and the only risk they face is from an FDA saying "pull the plug."
On the same day the FDA channeled Dr. Kevorkian, its European counterpart, the European Medicines Agency, issued a statement approving Avastin for metastatic breast cancer.
Benefits of the drug, it said, "continue to outweigh the risks, because the available data have overwhelmingly shown to prolong progression-free survival of breast cancer patients without a negative effect on the overall survival."
So what say you, FDA? An agency overseeing the cost-conscious, government-run health care systems in the European Union says Avastin does provide sufficient benefit at little risk to the patient.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Note who is hurt the worst.
Sebelius To HMOs: If You Raise Rates 10% You Will Answer To Me
The silent rationing began a year ago when they passed the d*mn thing. Since then the insurance companies have been tightening they approvals on claims as they look toward the new-costs freight train bearing down on them. I’ve already been a victim of this. Obamcare is here and it sucks.
By the grace of God we WILL get rid of it and him as well in 2 years.
Yep. And when all the people who have not bought health insurance get cancer and suddenly decide that they need it start demanding the insurance companies sell them a policy, the rates will go MUCH higher.
As the husband of a vivacious 59 year old wife who recently had MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, electively, remove both of her breasts, after she had two surgeries to remove her cancerous thyroid, and a recurrence of breast cancer; I believe that I'm able to weigh in on this subject.
.............The reason given by the FDA was that the drug does not provide “a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients.” What risk? These women are dying................
Yes, at this stage they're going to die!
When? Next week, next month, six months, a year? Does modern medicine keep them alive at a cost of $80,000 per treatment?
Does it make a difference if you keep your wife alive at $80,000 per treatment, with money out of your pocket, or is it different if the $80,000 comes out of all our pockets? Eventually, in the near term, she is going to die!
Call me fatalistic, but If I knew ahead of time that my life was to be shortened by a disease, wouldn't that be so much better than having a sudden heart attack or a major stroke?
With cancer, you have an opportunity to get your house in order, review your will, say your goodbyes. A terrible way to deteriorate, but, a much better way to finally say I love you!
When our beloved pets are about to die, most of us opt for them to not to have to prolong a difficult continuing life.
Why can't we allow our spouse to pass on with the same dignity???
To begin with, this is America, supposed to be a free country right? You can choose whatever you and your spouse want. The objection is being forced to allow some anonymous government bean counter to make the decision for you.
The rest of your comment doesn't make much sense either, which I attributte to the effect of your obvious emotional involvement in the issue.
Well, this is the crux of the issue. You think $80,000 a treatment too high.
How about $8 a treatment? Or $800? Where will the line be drawn?
Will you and you doctor make the decision, or you and your insurance company, or you alone, if you have saved some money over your lifetime?
In this case, government bureaucrats are saying NONE OF YOU.
NONE OF YOU WILL MAKE THIS CHOICE. WE MADE THE CHOICE FOR YOU!
Because they took the drug off the market, and you can’t buy it even if you can afford it.
This is just the start.
Proves my contention that Mammagrams cause cancer. White women are more prone to go get those evil things. Not me. Never.
God bless you
So the option of "keep them available to those who can pay privately" is not actually available, except as a thought experiment.
As for "where do you draw the line", this is a practical political problem we face every day. "Lets pay for everything" is just not a realistic option, so there is no point in pretending that we don't have to make such cost/benefit decisions, like it or not.
and I agree, I think they cause cancer - after all, it was the same as if you had sustained a terrific blow from some accident - and we know that can, eventually, bring on cancer.
(I had a friend in childhood that had a bad blow to her knee - within a year, cancer had set it. She lost her leg and then her life. My youngest son, 30 yrs ago, received a bad blow to his upper arm. A year later - bone cancer. He had a terrible time to stay alive - but made it against all odds and dr’s predictions - albeit with lasting effects. I have seen this scenario many times..)
In spite of what the European commission says the fact is that Avastin has never been shown to help with breast cancer. The fact is that the prior FDA chairman approved the drug against the recommendation of the FDA experts. The fact is that after doing this he resigned and took a lucretive job at Roche where the drug is made.
Somehow having the FDA or a government panel decide when you die doesn’t seem like going with “dignity” to me.
My generation learned from our mothers and grandmothers that it was important to protect the breasts from being hit or bruised. I believe that the Mammogram was invented by a man who has issues with women. He invented an instrument of torture and death.
IF anybody really cared about breast cancer, there would be more attention paid to “The Pill”.
It’s like AIDS, everybody knows the primary cause, but nobody wants to suggest behavior change.
Just gimmie a pill and don’t bother me about my choices.
My take on it was that is they used that torture machine to test for testicular cancer also - it would have banned decades ago...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.