The NHS drops Life-Saving Drug as it would lead to more Rationing and longer Wait Times

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 22nd, 2014

Week in Review

In 1954 almost 35% of all workers belonged to a union.  Since then that number has fallen to about 11.3%.  As the high cost of union contracts chased manufacturing out of the country.  Today the majority of workers belonging to a union work in the public sector.  Where they enter contract negotiations with the taxpayers to secure better pay and benefits than most taxpayers have.  Of course during these negotiations the taxpayers have no say.  As politicians and unions hammer out these contracts.  Unlike trade unions.  Where the people paying the workers actually have a say.

This is another reason why national health care is the Holy Grail for the left.  They want to unionize all those health care workers.  Pay them more.  And deduct union dues from their pay to fund their political activities.  Leaving less money for patient health care.  But they’re okay with that.  But they’re not okay with a pharmaceutical company charging a lot of money for life-saving drugs.  Which, also, leaves less money for patient health care (see Breast cancer drug turned down for NHS use due to high cost by Sarah Boseley posted 4/22/2014 on the guardian).

A Herceptin-style drug that can offer some women with advanced breast cancer nearly six months of extra life has been turned down for use in the NHS because of its high cost.

In draft guidance now open to consultation, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) blames the manufacturers, Roche, who are asking for more than £90,000 per patient, which is far more than any comparable treatment…

“We apply as much flexibility as we can in approving new treatments, but the reality is that given its price and what it offers to patients, it will displace more health benefit which the NHS could achieve in other ways, than it will offer to patients with breast cancer.”

Paying health care providers more will not improve the quality of health care.  Unless health workers are doing a half-assed job now.  Which I don’t believe they are.  But Roche is helping people with death sentences live another six months or so.  That’s a pretty remarkable thing.  If the NHS can’t afford this wonder drug perhaps they should use their own.  Of course they can’t.  Why?  Because they don’t have one.  For they didn’t pour hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this drug and the all those drugs that failed.

Developing a miracle drug is costly.  Money the pharmaceuticals pay up front.  Because their employees don’t work for free.  Which is why these drugs cost so much.  That high price pays for all of the costs that went into this drug.  For all of the drugs that failed.  And provides a return for investors.  Who give these pharmaceutical companies hundreds of millions of dollars up front just in the hope they may develop a miracle drug.  Which is the only way we should invest in these miracle drugs.  Because these investors will only take a chance on a good thing.  Unlike government.  Which has a history of backing the wrong investment time after time.  And pouring good money after bad.

It’s a tough choice to make.  Take health care benefits away from other patients to pay for a miracle drug for those dying from cancer.  Or let people die 6 months or so sooner.  One thing for sure, though, unionizing our health care workers won’t give either of these patients more health care benefits.  It will only leave less money for everything else.  Leading to rationing.  And longer wait times.  Because less money will pay for fewer things.  Making those other things scarcer.  Forcing people to wait longer and pay more for treatment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Health Care Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 20th, 2014

Economics 101

Because Obamacare Insurance pays for everything Under the Sun it is anything but Insurance

Do you know what the problem is with health care?  Insurance plans that give away free flu shots.  Not that flu shots are bad.  They’re not.  And it’s a good thing for everyone to get one every year at the onset of the flu season.  For it does seem to limit the spread of the flu virus.  It’s because we get a flu shot every year is why insurance shouldn’t pay for it.  Because we know about this expense.  And we can budget for it.  Just like we can budget for our monthly cellular bill.  Which is in most cases more than ten times the cost of one annual flu shot.

When Lloyds of London started selling marine insurance at that coffee shop they were selling insurance.  Not welfare.  Losing a ship at sea caused a huge financial loss.  And shippers wanted to mitigate that risk.  So every shipper paid a SMALL premium to protect against a LARGE loss.  A POTENTIAL sinking and loss of cargo.  Not every ship sank, though.  In fact, most ships did not.  Which is why that little bit from everyone was able to pay the financial loss of the few shippers that lost their ship and cargo.  But that’s all that Lloyd’s of London paid for.  They didn’t pay a dime to shippers whose ships didn’t sink.  No, those shippers paid every cent they incurred (crew, food, rum, etc.) to ship things across those perilous oceans.  Because they could expect those costs.  And they could budget for them.

This is how insurance works.  Which isn’t how our current health insurance system works.  No.  Today people don’t want to pay for anything out-of-pocket.  Not the unexpected catastrophic costs.  Or the EXPECTED small costs that everyone can budget for in their personal lives.  Like an annual flu shot.  Childhood vaccinations.  Annual checkups.  Childbirth.  Etc.  Even the unexpected things that aren’t that expensive.  Like the stitches required when a child falls off of a bike.  Things that would cost less than someone’s monthly cellular bill.  Or things that people can plan and save for.  Like a house.  A car.  Or a child.  Which is why Obamacare insurance is not insurance.  It pays for way too many expected costs that we can budget for.  And because it does it only increases the cost of our health insurance policies.  Which are now anything but insurance.

Free Market Forces and Insurance for Catastrophic Costs will Fix any Problems in our Health Care System

When we pay these things out-of-pocket there are market forces in play.  For a doctor is not going to charge someone they’ve been seeing for years as much as he will charge a faceless insurance company.  Even today some doctors will waive some fees to help some of their long-time patients during a time of financial hardship.  Because there is a relationship between doctor and patient.  And they want to help.  Which is why they sometimes overcharge insurance companies to recover costs they can’t recover in full from other patients.  (Which is why insurance companies are vigilant in denying overbillings).  Especially those things government pays for.  Medicaid.  And Medicare.  Which the government discounts.  Leaving health care providers little choice but to overbill others to pay for what the government does not.

When we pay out-of-pocket doctors can’t charge as much.  Because they need patients.  If they charge too much their patients may find another good doctor that charges a little less.  Perhaps a younger one trying to establish a practice.  These are market forces.  Just like there are everywhere else in the economy.  Even a cancer patient requiring an expensive miracle drug benefits from market forces.  If there was true insurance in our health care system, that is.  Cancer is an unexpected and catastrophic cost.  But not everyone gets cancer.  Just as every ship does not sink.  Everyone would pay a small fee to insure against a financial loss that can result from cancer.  Where that little bit from everyone buying a catastrophic health insurance policy was able to pay the financial loss of the unfortunate few that require cancer treatment.  Even one including a costly miracle drug.  Because only a few from a large pool would incur these financial losses insurers would compete against other insurers for this business.  Just like they do to insure houses.  And ships crossing perilous oceans.

Health care would work better in the free market.  It doesn’t today because government changed that.  Starting with FDR putting a ceiling on wages.  Which forced employers to offer generous benefits to get the best workers to work for them when they couldn’t offer them more pay.  This was the beginning.  Now the health insurance industry is so bastardized that it doesn’t even resemble insurance anymore.  It’s just a massive cost transfer from one group of people to another.  Instead of a pooling of money to insure against financial risk.  For the few unexpected and catastrophic costs we cannot afford or budget for to pay out-of-pocket.

Because our Health Care System is the Most Expensive in the World it is the Best in the World

The American health care system is the finest in the world.  When you have a serious health care issue and you have the wherewithal there’s only one place you’re going for your medical care.  The United States.  And the best costs.  And it’s because it is so costly that people enter into the health care industry to do wonderful things.  Such as pharmaceutical companies.  Who many rail against for charging so much for the miracle drugs only they produce.  It’s a free country.  Anyone could have created that miracle drug.  All they had to do was to spend a boatload of money for years on other drugs that were losers.  Until they finally found one that wasn’t a loser.  That’s all you had to do.  Yet few do it.  Why?

Because creating miracle drugs is an extremely expensive and often futile endeavor.  Which is why we award patents to the few who do.  Which is the only reason they pour hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development and pay massive liability insurance premiums for taking a huge risk to put a drug onto the market that may harm or kill people.  They do this on the CHANCE that they may develop at least one successful drug that will pay for all of the costs incurred to develop this one drug, the costs for the countless drugs that failed AND provide a profit for their investors.  Who took a huge risk in paying their employees over the many years it took to come up with at least one drug that wasn’t a loser.  Their investors do this only because of the CHANCE that this pharmaceutical will develop that miracle drug that everyone wants.  But most don’t.  And investors just lose their investment.  But it’s the only way miracle drugs become available to us.  Because of rich investors who were willing to risk losing huge amounts of money.

This is what the profit incentive gives us.  The best health care system in the world.  Why the countries based on free market capitalism have the finest health care systems in the world.  And why North Korea, Cuba, the former East Germany, the former Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc., have never given us miracle drugs.  There never was an economic incentive throughout the economy to do so.  Like there is in countries with free market capitalism.  Where everyone at every level pursues profits that result overall in a pharmaceutical industry that produces these miracle drugs.

There is an expression that says you get what you pay for.  Our health care system is the most expensive in the world.  And because it is it is the best in the world.  Trying to inhibit the profit incentive for research and development and forcing medical providers to work for less (steeper Medicaid, Medicare and now Obamacare discounts) will change that.  Because you do get what you pay for.  And those who live/have lived in North Korea, Cuba, the former East Germany, the former Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc., can attest to.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Abject Ignorance of things Economic is Destroying our Health Care System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

The problem in America these days is the mass ignorance of the people.  Thanks to a public school system that does not educate but programs our children to be good Democrat voters.  Higher education taken over by the leftist radicals of the Sixties that forever changed the curriculum to teach our children to distrust capitalism and love government.  When controlled by Democrats, of course.  And people who are for some reason respected for their economic prowess who are absolutely clueless on things economic (see The Daily Show Nails Why Healthcare Will Never Work As A Free Market by Christina Sterbenz posted 1/18/2014 on Business Insider).

Steven Brill, author of Time’s in-depth healthcare analysis “Bitter Pill,” appeared on The Daily Show this week to discuss his opinion of Obamacare.

Brill’s work exploded his career into a love-hate relationship with Obamacare, now leading to a book. Speaking with Jon Stewart, Brill certainly made his criticisms known but we also feel like he pinpointed exactly why healthcare just can’t work as a free market.

Brill told the story of a cancer patient forced to pay $13,700 out-of-pocket, up-front for transfusion of a drug. And that cost only constituted part of a greater $83,000 payment. Brill claims, however, the drug only cost the pharmaceutical company $300.

Stewart came back at Brill with the typical, conservative argument — creating a free market for healthcare where patients pick-and-choose their coverage to create competition and therefore, better options.

“Everyone says, well it’s a marketplace. That guy [the cancer patient] has no choice in buying that drug. His doctor told him, ‘This will save your life. You don’t take it, you’re gonna die,'” Brill responded.

He further argued free markets must host two aspects — a balance between buyers and sellers and secondly, knowledge — neither of which the current U.S. system offers.

“That cancer drug has a patent. That is a monopoly that the government has given the drug company. There is no other drug. That’s the drug,” Brill said.

Jon Stewart is a comedian.  So one can almost forgive his ignorance.  But you’d think a person writing for a publication with the word ‘business’ in its name would actually understand business.  But the author hasn’t a clue.  It’s not her fault.  It’s because of the politicizing of our educational system.  As her dual degrees in journalism and public affairs would have taught her squat about the classical, Austrian or the Chicago school of economics.  Instead filling her head with Keynesian nonsense.  The one economic school embraced by power-hungry governments everywhere that has a proven track record of failure.  For it was Keynesian policies that gave us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the dot-com bubble and recession of the late 1990s/early 2000s and the Great Recession.  Where massive government spending did not pull the economy out of recession but only made things worse.

Why does this pharmaceutical company have a patent?  Or perhaps a better question would be why do we have this one cancer drug?  Why is it that this one pharmaceutical company developed a cancer drug that works that no other pharmaceutical company or government developed?  Because of that patent.  The only reason they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development and paid massive liability insurance premiums for taking a huge risk to put a drug onto the market that may harm or kill people.  They do this on the CHANCE that they may develop at least one successful drug that will pay all of their past costs for this one drug, the costs for the countless drugs that failed AND a profit for their investors.  Who took a huge risk investing, giving this pharmaceutical company the money to pay all of their employees over the years it took to come up with at least one drug that wasn’t a loser.

Does the author of this article work for free?  No.  Of course not.  She has bills.  As we all do.  Even the people working at pharmaceutical companies.  Who don’t work there for free.  Even if the vast majority of their work produces nothing that their employer can sell their employer still pays them.  Thanks to their investors who give them the money to do so until they can actually sell something.  But their investors do this only because of the CHANCE that this pharmaceutical will develop that miracle drug that everyone wants.  A miracle drug that would never come into being if it weren’t for investors who were willing to risk losing huge amounts of money.  Something only rich investors can afford to do.

Health care worked as a free market before General Motors made it an employee benefit thanks to FDR’s ceiling on wages.  Once people stopped paying for what they received all free market forces left the health care system.  And costs began to rise.  This whole “healthcare just can’t work as a free market” is a product of the dumbing down of our educational system.  One that produces people who don’t know the difference between insurance and health care.  Insurance protects our assets against a catastrophic and UNEXPECTED loss.  Like when Lloyds of London started selling marine insurance at that coffee shop.  Every shipper paid a small premium to protect against a POTENTIAL sinking and loss of cargo.  A POTENTIAL financial loss.  Not every ship sank, though.  In fact, most ships did not.  Which is why that little bit from everyone was able to pay the financial loss of the few that did.  For the ships that didn’t sink the shippers paid every other cost they incurred to ship things across those perilous oceans.

This is how insurance works.  Which isn’t how our current health insurance works.  Where people don’t expect to pay for anything out-of-pocket.  Not the unexpected catastrophic costs.  Or the EXPECTED small costs that everyone can budget for in their personal lives.  Childhood vaccinations, annual checkups, flu shots, childbirth, etc.  Even the unexpected things that have a low cost.  Like the stitches required when a child falls off of a bike.  Things that would cost less than someone’s annual cellular costs.  Or things that people can plan and save for (like a house, a car or a child).  When we pay these things out-of-pocket there are market forces in play.  For a doctor is not going to charge someone they’ve been seeing for years as much as a faceless insurance company.  Even today some doctors will waive some fees to help some of their long-time patients during a time of financial hardship.  Because there is a relationship between doctor and patient.

When we pay out-of-pocket doctors can’t charge as much.  Because they need patients.  If they charge too much their patients may find another good doctor that charges a little less.  Perhaps a younger one trying to establish a practice.  These are market forces.  Just like there are everywhere else in the economy.  Even a cancer patient requiring an expensive wonder drug would contribute to market forces if there was true insurance in our health care system.  Cancer is an unexpected and catastrophic cost.  But not everyone gets cancer.  Everyone would pay a small fee to insure against a financial loss that can result from cancer.  Where that little bit from everyone was able to pay the financial loss of the unfortunate few that receive a cancer diagnosis.  Because only a few from a large pool would incur this financial loss insurers would compete against other insurers for this business.  Just like they do to insure houses.  And ships crossing perilous oceans.

Health care would work better in the free market.  It doesn’t today because government changed that.  Starting with FDR putting a ceiling on wages.  Which forced employers to offer generous benefits to get the best workers to work for them when they couldn’t offer them more pay.  This was the beginning.  Now the health insurance industry is so bastardized that it doesn’t even resemble insurance anymore.  It’s just a massive cost transfer from one group of people to another.  Instead of a pooling of money to insure against financial risk.  For the few unexpected and catastrophic costs we could not afford and budget for to pay out-of-pocket.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Pharmaceutical Company spent on Average $12 Billion per new Drug they brought to Market

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2013

Week in Review

People hate pharmaceutical companies.  They think they’re gouging them on the price of their medication.  If the people only knew what it cost to bring a new drug to market (see The Truly Staggering Cost Of Inventing New Drugs by Matthew Herper posted 2/10/2012 on Forbes).

The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion…

Bernard Munos of the InnoThink Center for Research In Biomedical Innovation…divided each drug company’s R&D budget by the average number of drugs approved…

The range of money spent is stunning. AstraZeneca has spent $12 billion in research money for every new drug approved, as much as the top-selling medicine ever generated in annual sales; Amgen spent just $3.7 billion. At $12 billion per drug, inventing medicines is a pretty unsustainable business. At $3.7 billion, you might just be able to make money (a new medicine can probably keep generating revenue for ten years; invent one a year at that rate and you’ll do well).

…the main expense is failure.

Why include failure in the cost? Right now, fewer than 1 in 10 medicines that start being tested in human clinical trials succeed…

It really does cost billions of dollars to invent new medicines for heart disease, cancer, or diabetes. The reality is that the pharmaceutical business is in the grip of rising failure rates and rising costs. We can all only hope that new technologies and a better understanding of biology will turn things around.

This is why our medicines are so expensive.  And why we have to wait for patents to run out before cheap generics hit the market.  Because whoever will manufacture those cheap generics didn’t have to spend $12 billion to bring the drug to market.

If drug companies can’t recover these massive costs they may do something worse than charge us an arm and a leg for a drug that will save our life.  They may stop bringing drugs that can save our life to market.

People say the profit incentive shouldn’t guide something as important as health care and medicine.  But what is the alternative?  Have the government spend $12 billion to develop a life-saving drug?  Because they’re so smart and motivated by social responsibility?  Instead of profit?  Yeah, they sure can pick winners in the private sector.  Like Solyndra.  If you’re not familiar with the name it’s because Solyndra filed bankruptcy.  Because their solar panels were the wrong solar panels to bet on in the private sector.  But the federal government bet $535 million in loan guarantees because they were so sure that Solyndra was a winner.  And their bankruptcy shows why we don’t want the government spending $12 billion to develop a life-saving drug.  For the federal government is just not good at bringing things to market.

So if we want these life-saving drugs we have to let these drug companies recoup the $12 billion they spent to bring a new drug to market.  For the sad reality is that $12 billion is a bargain compared to what the government would spend.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Regulators had Many Chances to prevent Meningitis Outbreak caused by Compounder NECC

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 28th, 2012

Week in Review

Compounding is basically making small batches of custom medicines.  A pharmaceutical company may mass produce a pill that a few patients may be allergic to the hard pill coating or want it in a liquid form.  So the compounder makes these custom medicines.  So these are small labs producing small batches of medicine.  Where the small volume of medicine allow a very high level of attention to detail during the production process.  Including many safeguards and precautions.  The problems at NECC happened when they were no longer making small batches in a small lab.  Their problems started when they started acting like a large pharmaceutical company while still using production procedures of a small lab (see Insight: Red flags ignored for years at firm in meningitis crisis by Toni Clarke and Sharon Begley posted 10/26/2012 on Reuters).

A cracked vial here, a missing label there. The complaints coming into New England Compounding Center, the firm at the heart of the deadly U.S. meningitis outbreak, were piling up…

…More than 300 people who received a tainted steroid sold by NECC that was used to treat back pain have been infected with fungal meningitis and 25 have died.

Interviews with former NECC employees and its customers, and a review of internal documents and newly-released state records, paint a picture of a company whose rapid growth was marred almost since its inception by breaches of regulations governing compounding practices. They also show how regulators failed to punish the company despite repeated violations of the rules…

NECC was formed in 1998 by Cadden and his in-laws, the Conigliaro family, with a $5,000 investment, state records show.

So regulators knew about violations for a decade or so and yet never closed them down.  In fact, after numerous violations NECC asked for some leniency in the regulator’s final action.  Which they got.  Because it’s in the power of a state regulator to do that.  For that’s the power of a state bureaucrat.

It was not long before Cadden sought to expand into other states. He found a receptive audience among pain clinics that enjoyed the cost savings NECC offered – in one case, the company told a client it could save $4,500 a year if it purchased a particular steroid through NECC. It also sold to hospitals who were turning to compounders to fill the gaps caused by worsening shortages of prescription drugs from traditional manufacturers.

Nearly 1,200 drug shortages, from chemotherapies to painkillers, were reported between 2001 and mid-2011, with some of the biggest increases seen in the latter half of that decade, according to the Government Accountability Office. Many of the supply disruptions stemmed from manufacturers’ quality control problems and the waning profitability of certain medicines.

NECC thrived on the demand. By the time the company surrendered its license on October 3, NECC was supplying hundreds of hospitals across the country, according to a list of customers released by the FDA…

NECC has stopped operating and faces an array of federal and state investigations, not to mention the prospect of civil suits for liability. Its owners could face criminal charges.

The pharmaceutical industry is a highly regulated industry.  Which adds regulatory compliance costs.  Lawyers often sue pharmaceutical companies.  Because sometimes pills make it through the FDA approval process and yet still hurt people.  Which also adds further costs.  And despite the high cost of medicine pharmaceutical companies can have pressures on profits.  Causing them to drop certain medicines.  Leading to shortages.  And opening the door to compounders.  Who operated under lower overhead costs.  Allowing them to offer scarce medicines at low prices.

So that’s the background to this unfortunate crisis.  Regulators may have created the environment that encouraged the rapid growth of NECC.  And regulators failed to prevent this unfortunate crisis by going easy on NECC despite a record of violations.  What ultimately shut down NECC?  When their drugs started killing people.  For even if no one took any action against them and allowed them to stay in business no one would buy any of their drugs.  Because they were unsafe.  Which is a powerful incentive NOT to sell drugs that kill people.  Not to mention avoiding civil suits and criminal charges.

NECC probably meant no harm.  Nor did the regulators that let them do harm.  But they operated for about a decade until the market shut them down.  Civil and criminal action may follow.  But that is after the fact.  The government didn’t protect the people until after people started dying.  Something the market would have done anyway without the help of government.  So is more regulation going to help make our medicine safer?  Or will it only further increase the costs of the pharmaceutical companies.  Leading to more medicine shortages?  And perhaps setting the stage for another NECC?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS using Cheaper Untested Drugs to Cut Costs and make their Limited Resources Stretch Further

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 6th, 2012

Week in Review

Who is more evil?  The pharmaceutical that has spent time and money to develop a new drug?  And then further time and money going through a lengthy clinical testing process to guarantee (as best as possible) that the new drug is safe?  When proven ‘safe’ by the regulators to sell it at a patent-protected price?  To cover all of these costs.  All the costs for the 20 new pills that failed along the way?  And the inevitable lawsuits when a proven ‘safe’ drug proves NOT to be safe after all?  Or is the health service using a cheaper drug that appears to give similar results?  That hasn’t gone through that extensive clinical testing process?  But they use the cheaper drug because they can treat more patients than they can with the more expensive but clinically tested drug?

Oh, it’s a perplexing and vexing question.  For we want new super drugs to cure all that ails us.  But we want those drugs to be cheap.  And safe.  But if they end up hurting us we’ll sue the bejesus out of everyone who allowed that drug to get into our system.  Which brings us to a great catch-22.  Drugs cannot be both cheap and safe.  For even the expensive ones sometimes prove not to be safe.  Especially if we rush them to market to save lives.  Only to find that by rushing those drugs to market they’ve harmed the lives we were trying to save.

Sadly, they have to balance the quality of health care with the cost of that health care.  Which is a never ending struggle in the NHS (see Using Avastin for eye condition wet AMD ‘could save NHS £84m’ by Branwen Jeffreys posted 5/6/2012 on BBC News Health).

The NHS could save £84m [about $135 million US] a year by using a cheaper drug to treat a leading cause of blindness, research suggests.

NHS-funded research says both Lucentis and Avastin have a similar effect in preventing loss of sight when used for wet age-related macular degeneration.

Lucentis costs about £700 an injection, and Avastin £60 – but Avastin is not officially approved for eye conditions.

Novartis, which markets Lucentis in the UK, is taking legal action against four NHS trusts for using the cheaper drug.

The company says the use of Avastin – developed to treat cancer – is undermining patient safety…

Lucentis is officially approved for use in eyes, and is the treatment recommended in England and Wales by the watchdog NICE.

Roche, which owns the rights to the similar, but cheaper, Avastin, has never sought to have it approved for use in eyes, which would involve further clinical trials.

But many doctors have been using Avastin at their clinical discretion…

As they both target blood vessels, the IVAN researchers particularly looked at whether there was an increased risk of heart attack or stroke…

Novartis argues that Lucentis has a safety profile proven in clinical trials and approved by the regulators.

It says the US research, which has just published data from the second year, highlights what it describes as “serious safety concerns” about the use of Avastin in this unlicensed treatment of eyes.

It points, for example, to a higher rate of stomach and gut disorders in patients given Avastin…

Cost pressures on the NHS have led to an increased use of Avastin…

The financial stakes are high both for the NHS and the pharmaceutical company.

Perhaps the question should be which is more evil?  The pharmaceutical industry?  Or a national health care system that has put cost considerations before patient care?  For the use of the cheaper drug is driven by the cost of the drug.  Not by the effectiveness of the treatment.  They may determine that the cheaper drug may be as safe as the more expensive drug.  The drug that was specifically clinically tested and approved by regulators for that specific use.  But this points out another issue.  Is the drug approval process not necessary for all drugs?  And, if not, why have it?  If it is only delaying bringing more life-saving drugs to market at affordable prices?  And if this is all true then should there be a ban on all lawsuits against pharmaceuticals?  Who were only doing what everyone demanded of them.  Rushing new life-saving drugs to market.

Perplexing and vexing questions, indeed.  And ones that we will hotly debate as Obamacare comes on line.  For Obamacare will have greater cost constraints than the NHS.  For Obamacare will treat far more people than the NHS.  About 5 times as many as the UK based on population sizes.  Which means the debate under Obamacare will not be about saving $135 million.   But about $683 million.  Over half a trillion dollars.  Or about half of the 2011 budget deficit.  So you know Obamacare will consider these cost savings.  And use drugs that haven’t gone through the clinical testing process like they are in the UK.  And actively search for other savings.  And place incredible pressures on the pharmaceuticals.  Making it very difficult for them to make a profit.  Or to even cover their costs.  And when that happens they will drop out of the business of finding new super drugs to cure all that ails us.  Making what ails us really ail us.  Reducing the quality of our lives.  Perhaps even killing us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,