Replies

Who pays, and is the cost relevant? That is really the question.

I assume you're alluding to a system of third-party payers (including insurance companies and/or the government) where the cost becomes relevant to more than the individual receiving the benefit?

If so, as you suggest, decisions like these are the inevitable result of government involvement as a payer of healthcare costs. And the further result of this decision can be nothing other then to have a chilling effect on further innovation within the lifescience sector.

I suppose the next question is, what then is the answer? In my opinion, policy should be to more directly align the cost and benefit received. Reintroduce the free market into this space.

“I assume you’re alluding to a system of third-party payers (including insurance companies and/or the government) where the cost becomes relevant to more than the individual receiving the benefit? “

I am wondering about both. Can insurance companies provide coverage for treatments that reach $100k per year to extend life a few months and still provide affordable coverage? Also, if the individual receiving the drug had to pay for it, would they?

I think most of the argument is actually financial, rather than medical. The result may be the same - treatment denied, but it’s not the same as a death panel - where treatment may be given to one, but not another.

“I suppose the next question is, what then is the answer? In my opinion, policy should be to more directly align the cost and benefit received. Reintroduce the free market into this space.”

I suppose if it is not a dangerous treatment, and someone was willing to pay for it, it should be made available. Since the FDA realizes that “the rich” would pay for it they are reacting to a defacto socialist mandate - if everybody can’t have it, for whatever reason, nobody can have it.

A bit more on my previous post...as I see it, a major problem in today's healthcare system is that insurance covers too much. I'd like to see a shift to a form of catastrophic healthcare coverage, with individuals footing the bill for standard visits and up to a significant deductible limit. This will make individuals more likely to self-govern when it comes to unnecessary doctor visits / treatments, reducing overall demand. By way of comparison, auto insurance exists in case of accidents - not to cover oil changes.

Granted, that has no direct bearing on expensive treatments such as Avastin. But I do believe that the free market will sort that out in the form of various insurance plans based on what an individual would like to have covered. No system is perfect, but this FDA decision is the obvious end result of allowing government to pay healthcare costs.

decisions like these are the inevitable result of government involvement as a payer of healthcare costs

Exactly right. And because government involvement is so pervasive, the government's decisions can lead to potentially valuable research's being completely shut down, never even begun.

Well, I'm not convinced these drugs are providing much benefit anyway, What I see is that when one is diagnosed with cancer, they start with their slicing and drugging with makes you life even more miserable than if you had never done anything.

I have NO confidence in any of these chemo treatments and I will never do it.

I will try natural therapies first and if that doesn't work, too bad, I'm gonna die some day anyway.

I've seen people put their trust in this chemo thing and their lives have become hell and then they die anyway. Count me out.

I have a friend with ovarian cancer who has done none of the recommended therapies and is still alive using only natural therapies after at least two years. She's in a heck of a lot better shape than if she had done chemo.