PDA

View Full Version : NHS: No Life-Prolonging Drugs For Loser Cancer Victims.



Gingersnap
03-05-2009, 11:28 AM
Life prolonging cancer drugs to be banned because they cost too much
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 12:35 AM on 05th March 2009

Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.

The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.

The move comes despite a pledge by Nice to be more flexible in giving life-extending drugs to terminally-ill cancer patients after a public outcry last year over 'death sentence' decisions. Leading campaigners last night said Nice had failed the 'acid test' of whether it really intended to give new priority to people with just a few months to live.

One drug, Lapatinib, can halve the speed of growth of breast cancer in one in five women with an aggressive form of the disease.

Dr Gillian Leng, Nice deputy chief executive, said 'The committee concluded that Lapatinib is not a cost-effective use of NHS resources when compared with current treatment.'

Up to 1,500 stomach cancer patients also face a ban on Sutent the only drug that can extend their lives.

Draft guidance by Nice said the drug should not be used even though it approved its use for kidney cancer last month.

And people want this system here? Frankly, I can get a vet to set a broken arm if push comes to shove but if I got cancer, that's when I'd actually need some high level medical attention. :eek:

Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html)

noonwitch
03-05-2009, 01:33 PM
As I mentioned not too long ago, my uncle's HMO did that to him, when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.

FlaGator
03-05-2009, 01:42 PM
And people want this system here? Frankly, I can get a vet to set a broken arm if push comes to shove but if I got cancer, that's when I'd actually need some high level medical attention. :eek:

Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html)

Socialized healthcare, isn't it a wonderful thing and truly a benefit to society :rolleyes:

lacarnut
03-05-2009, 01:52 PM
And people want this system here? Frankly, I can get a vet to set a broken arm if push comes to shove but if I got cancer, that's when I'd actually need some high level medical attention. :eek:

Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html)

We have these liberal politicians that want this type of health-care but they want to be under their own Gold Star separate health care system. Health care is not a RIGHT. However, if some gang-banger gets shot, he gets immediate emergency care even without insurance. I have been to the emergency room many, many times with my mom and dad and have seen these medicaid and medicare patients with minor aliments. They get treated pronto but it sure runs the costs up. We have the best health care in the world. Only a dumb shit would want to change it to a Canadian or EU type system.

lacarnut
03-05-2009, 02:36 PM
As I mentioned not too long ago, my uncle's HMO did that to him, when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.

I would not have a HMO. Most med. to large companies afford you choice. Of course, better fee based insurance policies cost more in premiums. 30 or 40 bucks a month more is worth it for me to have choice. I can go to a specialist or any hospital in the country without approval from anyone. That the way it works in health care and any other type of insurance. Note, my brother-in-law was treated at MD Anderson in Houston with a rare form of Cancer. He was not expected to live more than a couple of years. That was 15 years ago so this experimental treatment saved his life.

noonwitch
03-05-2009, 04:32 PM
I would not have a HMO. Most med. to large companies afford you choice. Of course, better fee based insurance policies cost more in premiums. 30 or 40 bucks a month more is worth it for me to have choice. I can go to a specialist or any hospital in the country without approval from anyone. That the way it works in health care and any other type of insurance. Note, my brother-in-law was treated at MD Anderson in Houston with a rare form of Cancer. He was not expected to live more than a couple of years. That was 15 years ago so this experimental treatment saved his life.


I have Blue Cross's PPO, and I'm happy with it. It doesn't cost any more than the bad HMOs, and Blue Cross does a good job screening it's doctors before listing them.

I'm glad to hear about your brother in law. I wish that Henry Ford Hospital and the Health Alliance Plan had helped my uncle in such a way. He was only 48, and had teenaged children at the time. His doctor screwed up long before his cancer metasized, because he kept prescribing painkillers for back pain and never ordered an X-ray. If he had, the X-ray would have picked up a shadow on his kidney and they might have been able to remove the kidney and followed up with chemo or radiation. My uncle was one of the rare people who had early symptoms. Even a life of dialysis is better than dying at 48, at least from the kids' perspective.

But my uncle had cerebral palsy and was also a bit developmentally delayed-not enough to keep him from working (at Ford-he started out doing gardening and snow removal, and ended up in packaging). Who knows whether his doctor considered that when determining treatment options?

tacitus
03-05-2009, 05:26 PM
I think that what ever HC system that is forced on Americans, all politicians must also be enrolled in the same system, no exceptions. Too often these elite politicians have a standard for us common folk, i.e. Social Security, and another for themselves, well that is pure BS. I can guarantee that if a congresscritter has cancer, they'll pull out the stops for a cure and damn the cost.





link (http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/101421.asp)

Members of Congress enjoy excellent health benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). For 2002, Representative Hoeffel could choose from 11 different health care plans under FEHBP. All plans offer prescription drug benefits.

The government (meaning taxpayers like you and me) pays 72% of the average premium but not more than 75%. Your Congressman saw the remaining 25% deducted from his $12,500 monthly paycheck (also paid for by you and me). This is similar to the amount the government pays under Medicare. Under Medicare, the government pays 75% of the Part B premium and the other 25% monthly premium is deducted from your Social Security check (which is much, much less than $12,500 per month).



Among the 11 health plans, the federal employee share of monthly premiums ranges from a low of $55.58 per month to a high of $354.08 per month. These premiums compare with Medicare Part A hospital insurance and Medicare Part B doctors' and outpatient services. But, they also include prescription drug coverage. Medicare Part B premiums in 2002 are $54 per month. Most Medicare beneficiaries pay nothing for Medicare Part A, but most supplement Medicare, and pay additional premiums for Medigap policies.


The Medicare deductibles in 2002 are $812 for Part A and $100 for Part B. FEHBP deductibles range from nothing for hospital stays to $500. Doctor and outpatient services deductibles range from none to $500. Prescription drug deductibles range from none to $600. The plan with the lowest combination of deductibles is $250; the plan with the highest is $1,150.

biccat
03-05-2009, 09:34 PM
As I mentioned not too long ago, my uncle's HMO did that to him, when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
It's a pretty disappointing situation. Rarely do you hear good stories about HMOs.

I wonder what kind of sicko came up with the idea of HMOs? :rolleyes:

Gingersnap
03-05-2009, 10:18 PM
It's a pretty disappointing situation. Rarely do you hear good stories about HMOs.

I wonder what kind of sicko came up with the idea of HMOs? :rolleyes:

Not all HMOs are bad deals. I use Kaiser and I've found it to be pretty good - particularly for people with chronic and life-threatening illnesses. Now, Kaiser couldn't care less if you have some kind of minor but persistent problem but they are the go-to people for cancer or heart disease. At least, that's been true in my own experience. The Kaiser docs in Denver are on the bleeding edge of cardiovascular treatment. ;)

Of course, they've done nothing to treat my PLE or granuloma annulare issues over the years. :D