We need to pay attention: In the UK, a woman with a rare cancer has been refused coverage for chemo that would extend her life. From the story:
A dying mother last night became the human face of an election battle over the NHS. Nikki Phelps, 37, who has a rare glandular cancer, has been refused the only drug that could prolong her life. Despite pleas from her consultant, her local NHS trust says it will not meet the £100-a-day cost.
Labour ministers promised more than a year ago to give sufferers of rare cancers easier access to life-extending drugs. But the rationing body NICE has since refused to approve ten such drugs. Experts say the rulings cut short up to 20,000 lives.
Last night Mrs Phelps pleaded with the NHS to fund the drug Sutent, which she says will let her see her twins grow up. She said: ‘I can’t understand what the NHS is doing – where is the logic in investing in my treatment and then pulling the plug on me like this? ‘My consultant is an expert in the field, and he knows what’s best for me. Yet someone else is making a decision about what drugs I can and cannot take.’
It’s still not too late for us: Obamacare–Repeal. Reform. Replace.
April 9th, 2010 | 1:30 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: NHS Meltdown: Rare Cancer Patients Refused Life-Prolonging Chemotherapy » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://shar.es/mqOWi [...]
April 9th, 2010 | 9:35 am
Of course, without Obamacare this person would not have any coverage at all in the USA. Pre-existing condition and all. Unless she deliberately becomes a ward of the state by going bankrupt or committing a crime.
April 9th, 2010 | 10:38 am
Mrs. Phelps was diagnosed with MEN1 in 2000, a disease she inherited from her father, who died of the disease. In 2007 she decided to have children.
“Mrs Phelps says that doctors believe that cancers previously kept at bay by successive courses of chemotherapy ‘ran riot’ during her pregnancy.”
and
“…doctors have also warned her that there is a 50 per cent chance one of her sons could contract the condition in later life.”
To be fair, it’s not possible to predict the severity of MEN1 her children might develop, only the likelihood of developing the syndrome. This woman put herself and her progeny at risk by her decision. Why would conservatives expect the government to pay? Just because you hate liberals??
That said, we do need to find a mechanism enabling expensive experimental therapies such as Sutent for Mrs. Phelps. Rare cancers are not typically evaluated in the clinical trials that guide the FDA in approving drugs for treating particular cancers. Sutent has narrow prescribing guidelines and is indicated for gastrointestinal stromal tumor
and advanced renal cell carcinoma. Sutent has failed in multiple clinical trials against other forms of cancer, but Pfizer reported encouraging results in a Phase II study of 66 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (it’s not clear if this is what Mrs. Phelps has). Clearly, based on prescribing guidelines, the use of Sutent in Mrs. Phelps case is experimental and very expensive ( ~ $36,000 US/ year). Doctors and patients can legally use approved drugs for whatever disease they wish, but insurers (either private or public) are under no obligation to pay for it.
How do we decide how much to spend experimenting on patients with critical if not terminal diseases? That’s an important discussion to have, provided one is interested in solving problems.
From Wikipedia:
“Sunitinib is marketed by Pfizer as Sutent, and is subject to patents and market exclusivity as a new chemical entity until February 15, 2021. Sutent has been cited in financial news as a potential revenue source to replace royalties lost from Lipitor following the expiration of the latter drug’s patent expiration in November 2011. Sutent is one of the most expensive drugs widely marketed. Doctors and editorials have criticized the high cost, for a drug that doesn’t cure cancer but only prolongs life.
In the U.S., insurance companies have refused to pay for all or part of the costs of Sutent. Because Sutent is an oral therapy, the “co-pay” associated with this therapy can be very substantial. If a patient’s secondary insurance does not cover this, the cost burden to the patient can be extreme.”
April 9th, 2010 | 11:50 am
She had every right to have children with her husband, let’s not suggest she didn’t.
And she has every right to pay the 100 pounds a day out of pocket.
What’s the common thread running through every one of Wesley’s positions on medical ethics? Giving maximum taxpayer money to drug research companies and giving them free rein to do their research on animals or however they want. I’d like to be proven wrong, is there any case where Wesley supports a law restricting research or creation of humans by any method including genetic engineering, or any proposal that would reduce drug company research funding?
April 9th, 2010 | 7:49 pm
They’re serious!!!! I know I’ve seen the name of the rationing agency before, but have they no shame?
Kamilla
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact