A new report to the United Nations General Assembly by the World Health Organization (WHO) calls cancer the costliest disease. Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Association calls cancer an economic killer. The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel which regulates approval of drug use has now decided to drop plans to allow Avastin to be used to treat breast cancer.
Avastin was originally developed to combat colon cancer, but the drug has shown to be effective in the fight against breast cancer. In 2008, after clinical tests, the FDA approved the use of Avastin for battling breast cancer. However, two new studies plus the $8,000 per month price tag has caused the FDA to reconsider it’s earlier decision.
Initial tests had shown that Avastin had reduced blood flow to tumors. The FDA approved the drug’s use for breast cancer based on the tests that showed it may extend the time for the cancer to worsen by as much as five months. But the two latest studies show that Avastin may only slow the growth of a tumor for one month.
The FDA’s reversal on Avastin opens the door that other drugs may also lose their previous recommendations. David Vitter (R-LA), a critic of the Obama health care law, said “I shudder at the thought of a government panel assigning a value to a day of a person’s life. It is sickening to think that care would be withheld from a patient simply because their life is not deemed valuable enough.”
The Avastin case is merely one story in the overall fight against cancer. According to the WHO report, the economic price tag of cancer was $895 Billion dollars in 2008. Equal to 1.5% of the world’s total GDP. Cancer costs more than HIV/AIDS, malaria and the flu. Along with heart disease and diabetes, such chronic diseases like cancer cause 60% of all deaths worldwide.
Infectious diseases like AIDS and influenza have seen a marked increase in funding globally the past ten years. But many believe more attention needs to be spent on non-infectious, chronic disease. With the costs of care, and drugs ever rising, and funding becoming scarcer, hard choices must be made.
Lung and related cancers cost $180 Billion alone, with all cancers costing $895 Billion. Heart disease comes in second at $753 Billion globally. While progress has been made in fighting infectious disease, the mortality rates of non-infectious disease steadily climbs.
The WHO report to the United Nations General Assembly indicates the growing concerns that governments face on the cost of health care. With cancer now being recognized as such an expensive disease according to Dr. Otis Brawley, will the FDA’s decision on Avastin be just the first of many drugs and treatments restricted and limited? Is this the beginning of the Obama health care death panels?
Related Articles:
US breast cancer drug decision ‘marks start of death panels’
$50 Billion Last Year Cost of Dying
August 17th, 2010 at 11:31 am
They aren’t death panels – they are The People’s Democratic Alternative Duration Discussion Groups.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
As I’ve said before.I’m glad I got and beat rectal cancer when I did. Which by the way, still makes me a prime candidate for colon cancer
As my monthly premiums keep rising and our incomes stagnate I might eventually die of whats become the country biggest pain in the a$$.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Why are you still pushing the idea of Death Panels? Being on the Right doesn’t mean you have to lie.
August 17th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
JBBW
Call em what you want.
If I’m paying into a private plan that insitutes the same policy its not half as dangerous than a “government” whos controlling everyones healthcare.
You obviously dont see the horrific scenarios that could unfold if say… we have to shut down the fed like Clinton did ? Orrrr…end up broke like we are now ?
Pfft.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
JBBW – because they ARE death panels. Catch up, m’kay?
August 17th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
JBBW,
Obama, Biden, and the rest of the Liberal Moonbats promised that no government bureaucrats or regulators would get in between treatment options between you and your doctor.
DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM! DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM-DUM!
August 17th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Just for you, JBBW, I’ve added Biden’s claim that there would be no “death panels”.
Oddly enough, “60 Minutes” just ran the high cost of End-of-Life care two Sundays ago. Coincidence? I think NOT!
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6964
August 17th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
There was no death panel here. The FDA has 2 studies that show the drug does not help breast cancer patients. The drug was accelerated into testing because it was thought to be useful and then withdrawn when it was found out it was not and actually increased chemotherapy side effects. AGAIN, NOT A DEATH PANEL, JUST MAKING CORRECT DRUG RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CANCER PATIENTS. This article is flat out lie to make a ridiculous political point and confuse people who will not do their own research. WebMD and The Wall Street Journal articles are below.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
PG, JBBW
You go right ahead and let the fed decide your policy for you, kay ?
August 17th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Let’s hope those of you who can’t see the “death panels” lurking in the wings are right. If you’re wrong it’ll just cost you your life. No biggie, right?
August 17th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Micky, this has absolutely nothing to do with your insurance policy. This is a panel who looked at the scientific results of a study and determined that since this particular drug does not help breast cancer patients and increases serious side effects, it should not be prescribed in this situation. I am not sure why you would want a person with cancer to be prescribed an expensive drug that will not help and actually be harmful. This seems like what we want our medical system to be checking on and not making a ridiculous claims about it.
August 17th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
JBBW, you are totally wrong.
Being on the Right DOES mean that you have to lie.
It is one in the same, you know?
August 17th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“Micky, this has absolutely nothing to do with your insurance policy.”
yeah, it does. As the public gravitates towards so called “free health care” private industry will have to raise premiums to stay afloat. its already starting. Many private insurers are raising premiums now in anticipation of the upcoming abomination.
” This is a panel who looked at the scientific results of a study and determined that since this particular drug does not help breast cancer patients and increases serious side effects, it should not be prescribed in this situation.”
Bla bla bla. The author of this post mentioned the same thing. The crux of the matter is whther or not you want a single entity dictating an entire countrys healthcare.
In the private sector I have the option to pay for policy that will include a drug “I CHOOSE” because I feel its beneficial.
“I am not sure why you would want a person with cancer to be prescribed an expensive drug that will not help and actually be harmful.”
See above statement.
” This seems like what we want our medical system to be checking on and not making a ridiculous claims about it.”
Yes, and not a governemental panel who doesnt know where its next dollar is coming from.
In a free market sales will determine a drugs benefits and viability.
I certainly hope you can see the dangers of two government agencies, the FDA and Obamacare being in control of studies and dispenssing of medical benefits.
It aint rocket surgery
August 17th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Micky again that is not a very good argument here.
First, I am very happy the FDA is checking the safety of the food I eat and the drugs I take. As we have seen with countries like China where they do not have an FDA, serious problems have occurred and I prefer that we avoid them here in America as much as possible.
Second, you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, which we all are, and yet you feel that doctors should be prescribing expensive drugs that are useless and have serious side effects??? Now, I am not an oncologist and I am assuming you are not either (correct me if I am wrong) and so I do not believe you or I should be making decisions on how cancer is treated. I will rely on the professionals with years of school and experience, and I suggest you do the same for your own safety.
Finally, I am not sure if you are aware of how insurance works, but insurance companies decide what procedures they will pay for if you get sick. These companies can put their profits ahead of your well-being which is why many people feel the system needs reform.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
“Micky again that is not a very good argument here. ”
So you say.
“Second, you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, which we all are, and yet you feel that doctors should be prescribing expensive drugs that are useless and have serious side effects??”
Now, DID I SAY THAT ?
(and you talk about “not good arguments”?)
“Finally, I am not sure if you are aware of how insurance works, but insurance companies decide what procedures they will pay for if you get sick. These companies can put their profits ahead of your well-being which is why many people feel the system needs reform.”
Once again.
If a certain company does not offer the use of a drug a doctor may find beneficial to me I have the choice whithin a free competitive market to shop elsewhere.
With the FDA (which has its merits)and the fed in cahoots on my healthcare you’ll get a resounding “FCK OFF “!
The fed will also have to reign in costs like any prudent viable privately owned company.
The problem is that the fed has no incentive to do so. A profit driven company does in fact have a profit margin to exercise but also has an obligation to attract business.
If you cant see the difference between privatized insurance and unconstitutionaly mandated federal care its you whos lacking understanding of the most basic concepts of service and business.
The system only needs reform in the sense of reigning in frivilous law suits so that doctors and hospitals dont have to charge us 20.00 for an aspirin because their liability insurance is so outrageous ontop of the billions the fed still owes them in reinbursements for medicaide and medicare(broke and hundreds of times over budget) we dish out for illegals and those without insurance.
The majority of the country does not want this crap much for the reasons I state so consequently the logical approach would be to focus on the minority in need instead of cramming the whole bill down the whole countrys throat.
“My Doctor” and “My insurance company” put together a wonderful protocol for dealing with my cancer.
“They” saved my life. Not Obama. Not the FDA.
If you cant see that this admistrations only reason for Obamacare is to squeeze private industry out of the picture so they can control a voting base you truly are lost.
Pelosi, Obama, could care less how you get cared for.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
First of all much of the biotechnology advances will cost too much for people to afford them no matter what happens. Secondly we desparately need health reform and we still need to cut costs. Of course Medicare panels are going to reject some of the biotechnology, for various reasons. Can we develop a generic biotechnology industry? Eitherway, we still need health care reform and real cost cutting. we aren’t there yet.
August 17th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
I think you have lost the plot here Micky. The point of the article is that there is some kind of death panel at work because the FDA determined a drug is not a good choice for breast cancer and does more harm than good. You disagree based on the point that the FDA made this decision and the FDA can not be trusted to do so, apparently since Obama is president and therefore no government agency can be trusted now. I am glad you agree that the FDA rules and regulations keep your pork from killing you though.
““Second, you are concerned about the rising cost of health care, which we all are, and yet you feel that doctors should be prescribing expensive drugs that are useless and have serious side effects??”
Now, DID I SAY THAT ?
(and you talk about “not good arguments”?)”
Yes Micky, that is exactly what you said. You don’t think the FDA is a good enough source to judge what is a viable medical drug and it should be up to you is what you said, even if said drug is a complete waste of money and may actually be harmful to you.
And you are completely wrong that the insurance industry allows you to just shop around for a policy that suits your taste. Most people have no choice of what policy they employer offers and the insurance companies have virtual monopolies across the country. Furthermore, if you try to get a private insurance policy, it is extremely expensive and leaves you little recourse if you have a complaint against them. Also, I would love to see you get diagnosed with cancer, find out what options your carrier has and then “shop around” for a better insurance plan. You would NEVER be picked up by an insurance company after such a diagnosis. This is the EXACT point of why there needs to be reform. These companies do not function like a commodity, as you assume, and, therefore, simple supply and demand do not affect them. Yes, malpractice reform should be a part of health care reform but it is not even close to the driving factor in increasing insurance premiums.
Now there are very good questions, concerns, and complaints about the current health care reforms that should be addressed and answered and these should be done in a civil and sane way, but idiotic articles like this one claiming death panels and other such ridiculous things are not helping the debate. They only serve to confuse and politically charge issues that need to be seriously talked about.
August 18th, 2010 at 12:40 am
I suggest that anybody for government run health care spend a day in the waiting area of a busy VA hospital. This is what assembly line medicine is going to look line when it gets off the ground.
It’ll be all downhill from there.
August 18th, 2010 at 4:53 am
I really don’t see why we have to do everything the most stupid way possible. Get some innovative managers in there. Clearly we still need serious health reform that both increase access, which to mean includes increased quality, and then that decreases cost and it can be done. We have a lot of talent bottled up in Schools of Public Health that have delivery and administrative programs. We have a large pool of talent in for profit and not for profit hospitals, and plenty of hmo plans. There is no reason to run the VA like a giant county mental hospital steeped in beauracracy. You can have fast track urgent care, routine regular care, ample specialty care, and computerized 90 day pharmacys that make a mere 4 shipments a year. You can add mental health services and podiatric services quite easily and a streamlined orthopedic and orthodic services. You can offer insurance to private care that would cap costs. Many many ways. What is important is you start the care early with the right diagnosis and from that good starting position it would be so much easier.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:00 am
“There was no death panel here.”
A government agency decided a drug that all 3 studies showed extended life withdrew its approval for the use in advanced breast cancer patients.
That is the definition of a death panel.
Throw in a picture of the Holy One mooning over the FDA seal and we can use in in the dictionary.
August 18th, 2010 at 5:32 am
The key here is that for two years, the FDA apparently believed that the drug was giving some benefits to women who had terminal cases of breast cancer. The drug may be expensive was it was buying them extra time.
Now two new studies say it “only” extends life maybe one month. Maybe there are additional side-effects to those receiving chemotherapy. Chemo by itself is pretty nasty anyway.
The point is, Obama, Biden and others promised that no government regulators would interfere in decisions made between a doctor and the patient. If they decide to take the risk then that’s their call. But, as we can now see, we, the American people, were lied to. This is just the beginning.
As I mentioned earlier, there now seems to be a deliberate move by the government and their pals in the state-controlled media to raise the issue of ‘End of Life’ care and the costliness of chronic diseases. The camel’s nose is coming through the tent!
August 18th, 2010 at 5:45 am
the government already has been making therapy utilization decisions, that is nothing new. Is possible that in the future your “death panels” could just blanketly block good effective therapy. “no penicillin for you mr. smith, that costs the government money and we aim to cut the budget”. That is always a risk. Statistically, look at the sample size as one month survivability may not even be statistically significant. The issue of the government making decisions of what they are going to pay for was going to hit us anyways. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for $15,000 of biotechnology medicines for the next dozen years for somebody. Its a real issue. Again I say we need health reform and we need to revisit the cost issue and drive down costs with a serious intent. We haven’t done that yet. The obmama plan really does a lot less than you think as it was so watered down and they caved into the fear mongering and childish obstructuion of the right. The republicans could have come up with serious cost reform including tort reform, but they just sat on their hands and said no, no, no, while they collected their paychecks, and their staff collected their paychecks, travel vouchers, meal subsidizes, housing subsidies, office and electricity bills, copier bills, internet bills, security bills, and medical care. They ate the roast while sitting and doing nothing. Talk about wasting money. They wasted many millions of our tax dollar and did no work. And now want to blame obama? Grow up people!
August 18th, 2010 at 5:57 am
OK Brian
Go shoot somebody that “only” has a month to live – let us know how statistically significant the police feel it is.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:42 am
“I think you have lost the plot here Micky.”
Not at all. You’re failing to see the big picture and what this all boils down too.
“Yes Micky, that is exactly what you said. You don’t think the FDA is a good enough source to judge what is a viable medical drug and it should be up to you is what you said, even if said drug is a complete waste of money and may actually be harmful to you.”
BS.
I said no such thing. You just want to limit the parameters of the argument to your own specifics, which I’ve gotten past by mentioning that I simply dont think its a good idead when the government thats running your healthcare also has influence on another governmental agency that hasa direct effect on the choices towards governmental mandated health care.
As you failed to notice, I did mention that the FDA does have it merits, but not when theres a possible collaboration between two federal entities that go directly to major decisions.
Unless yo’re actully going to start answering my questions I think the conversation here has already made clear whats evident.
“And you are completely wrong that the insurance industry allows you to just shop around for a policy that suits your taste. Most people have no choice of what policy they employer offers and the insurance companies have virtual monopolies across the country.”
BS.
My wife works for CVS and they offer varying plans from varying companies. If theres any reform needed its the ability to also shop across state lines. I also own my own business and can pretty much go with whatever carrier I choose based on # of staff.
“They only serve to confuse and politically charge issues that need to be seriously talked about.”
No, they bring to light whats to come.
Please tell me. When has the federal goverment ever worked whithin its fiscal and budgeted means ?
Brian;
“The republicans could have come up with serious cost reform including tort reform,”
They did you moron, including interstate competition, reducing and or capping frivilous law suits.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:52 am
“They ate the roast while sitting and doing nothing. Talk about wasting money. They wasted many millions of our tax dollar and did no work. And now want to blame obama? Grow up people!”
You are of course aware of which partys been running congress for the last 4 years and whos been in the white house for the last two.
Or are you just full of more sht ?
There never is or was any “Healthcare crisis” until dems come to power. Sure, the industry needs some tweaking but statistically the majority of Americans during the Clinton era and now chose to remain with their current insurer/policy.
You might want to start with the illegals who cost us 300 + billion every year in entitlements and collateral damage as some beginning towards attaining revenues for reform in areas needed. Like those in line at the VA. People who actually deserve it