Welcome to Gaia! ::


Quotable Informer

20,825 Points
  • Elysium's Gatekeeper 100
  • Partygoer 500
  • Frozen Sleuth 100
With some new, potentially lifesaving cancer drugs costing up to $138,000 a year, about 120 leading cancer specialists have joined forces in an unusual protest aimed at getting pharmaceutical companies to cut prices.

Charging high prices for drugs cancer patients need to survive is like “profiteering” from a natural disaster by jacking up prices for food and other necessities, leading cancer doctors and researchers from around the world contend in a new paper published in Blood, the journal of the American Society of Hematology.

Of 12 new cancer drugs that received FDA approval last year, 11 of them cost in excess of $100,000 a year—prices that the specialists attack as “astronomical,” “unsustainable,” and maybe even immoral. What’s more, only three of these drugs were found to improve patient survival rates and of these, two only increased it by less than two months, according to the Washington Post.

“Advocating for lower drug prices is a necessity to save the lives of patients,” say the specialists who wrote the paper, who specialize in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), but emphasize that sky-high drug costs affect patients with many types of cancer.



Going Bankrupt to Stay Alive

“Medical illness and drug prices are the single most frequent cause of personal bankruptcy” in the US, according to the specialists, where patients’ copayments on drug prices average 20 percent of the total cost of the drug. That means that cancer patients often face having to shell out $20,000 to $30,000 a year, simply to stay alive.

The specialists also note that astronomical drug prices may be the single most common reason why patients stop taking lifesaving drugs. This is particularly true for those with CML, which requires daily treatment for long-term survival.

As a result the paper says, “grateful patients may have become the ‘financial victims’ of the treatment success, having to pay the high price annually to stay alive.” One study found that 10 percent of cancer patients fail to fill new prescriptions for oral cancer drugs.

For some patients, such as breast cancer survivor Patti Tyree, medical costs—not the disease—are stealing their future. The 57-year-old postal worker inherited $25,000, but after just one round of treatment for breast cancer, nearly half of the money is gone—and bills continue to pour in, she told USA Today.

One of the more expensive therapies for CML is Gleevac, a cancer drug that generated $4.7 billion in sales last year, making it the bestselling drug for its manufacturer, Novartis. Another Novartis leukemia drug, Tasigna, had sales of $1 billion, according to The New York Times.

Doctors Pressure Drug Companies to Slash Prices

Some of the specialists who joined the protest were inspired by the doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) who refused to use a new colon cancer drug called Zaltrap because it cost more than twice as much ($11,063 on average for one month of treatment) as another drug (Avastin) without improving outcomes.

“Soaring spending has presented the medical community with a new obligation. When choosing treatments for a patient, we have to consider the financial strains they may cause alongside the benefits they might deliver,” the MSKCC doctors wrote in an October, 2012 op-ed for The New York Times about their boycott.

Subsequently, the drug’s manufacturer slashed the price by 50 percent.



Cancer Drugs Rank Among the World’s Most Expensive

The idea that "one cannot put a price on a human life” has led to wildly overblown healthcare costs in the U.S., estimated at $2.7 trillion in 2011, according to the paper’s authors, who urge insurers and government to more aggressively negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

Many reports show that cancer drugs consistently rank as the most expensive therapies, even though some only extend life by a few months or offer no benefit over older, less expensive drugs.

The paper discussed Gleevac, which was originally priced at about $30,000 a year when it was approved in 2001. Since then, the price has tripled. However, its manufacturer told The New York Times that relatively few patients actually pay the full cost—and that the price reflects the high cost of developing new medications, which reportedly exceeds $1 billion.

Yet even doctors involved with developing Gleevac, such as Dr. Brian Druker, are criticizing Novartis, which raked in $4.7 billion in sales for the drug in 2012.

“If you are making $3 billion a year on Gleevec, could you get by with $2 billion?” Dr. Druker, now director of Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health and Science University, said in an interview with The New York Times. “When do you cross the line from essential profits to profiteering?”


drugs!

Dedicated Seeker

9,950 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Megathread 100
  • Member 100
It's good to see someone - aside from the patients that is - taking a stand against the daftly pricey costs.

Hallowed Sex Symbol

8,850 Points
  • Jack-pot 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Autobiographer 200
It's true. Companies set the prices because they know they can. Can you imagine how awful it would be to have a deadly cancer, know that there is a cure for it, but also know that you could never afford the cost of it?

Quotable Informer

20,825 Points
  • Elysium's Gatekeeper 100
  • Partygoer 500
  • Frozen Sleuth 100
T3h Jinji
It's true. Companies set the prices because they know they can. Can you imagine how awful it would be to have a deadly cancer, know that there is a cure for it, but also know that you could never afford the cost of it?
Well you got to pay for the research and the making of the drugs.

Loyal Exhibitionist

xdivision_whitey
T3h Jinji
It's true. Companies set the prices because they know they can. Can you imagine how awful it would be to have a deadly cancer, know that there is a cure for it, but also know that you could never afford the cost of it?
Well you got to pay for the research and the making of the drugs.

That makes sense, but, honestly, why price it out of their price range? Why even make it in the first place? Only rich people could afford the cure, and it would just stabilize their power over the poorer, dwindling communities.

Hallowed Sex Symbol

8,850 Points
  • Jack-pot 100
  • Hygienic 200
  • Autobiographer 200
xdivision_whitey
T3h Jinji
It's true. Companies set the prices because they know they can. Can you imagine how awful it would be to have a deadly cancer, know that there is a cure for it, but also know that you could never afford the cost of it?
Well you got to pay for the research and the making of the drugs.

Even with that accounted for, it shouldn't make such a difference as to be impossible for all but the ultra rich to get. Something like that should be mass-produced, and marketed towards everyone. More expensive than Tylenol, sure, but not impossible to get.
xdivision_whitey
T3h Jinji
It's true. Companies set the prices because they know they can. Can you imagine how awful it would be to have a deadly cancer, know that there is a cure for it, but also know that you could never afford the cost of it?
Well you got to pay for the research and the making of the drugs.


Research tends to be funded not just by the company themselves but by governmental organizations as well. Research grants are very common even in private companies.

As for making the drugs, that is very cheap compared to what they price things at. Pfizer, one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies, had a profit margin of 42% last quarter. They are not hurting for money and could easily lower their prices.

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
I hope they make some progress because US drug prices in general are embarrassing.

So are other medical costs in general. Retiring and switching to a self purchased umbrella medical insurance (as in only covers big stuff) made me really look at the cost of even common stuff like an office visit to a GP. The clinic I used to go to for a routine issue (sinus infection or whatever) was up to over $200 per office visit. I found a nurse practitioner with a smaller practice who only charges $60 and gives me better service and less doesn't make me sit forever in the waiting room.
Oh, and last year I saw an Ear/Nose/Throat specialist for my sinuses and a quick exam / conversation with the guy (about 15 minutes total) cost me over $350.

Vector Theta's Husbando

Mega Man-Lover

David2074
I hope they make some progress because US drug prices in general are embarrassing.

So are other medical costs in general. Retiring and switching to a self purchased umbrella medical insurance (as in only covers big stuff) made me really look at the cost of even common stuff like an office visit to a GP. The clinic I used to go to for a routine issue (sinus infection or whatever) was up to over $200 per office visit. I found a nurse practitioner with a smaller practice who only charges $60 and gives me better service and less doesn't make me sit forever in the waiting room.
Oh, and last year I saw an Ear/Nose/Throat specialist for my sinuses and a quick exam / conversation with the guy (about 15 minutes total) cost me over $350.


It is pretty disconcerting, isn't it? They're cheaper in other countries but they get away with what practically amounts to highway robbery in the US for who even knows what reason. Lack of a price ceiling, maybe? confused

Demonic Fairy

13,625 Points
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Tycoon 200
  • Jack-pot 100
Not stating an opinion on this controversial matter either way, but if medical prices were reasonable, people wouldn't want socialized medical care so badly. The fact that so many medical problems are an instant bankruptcy sentence for anyone out of the 1% is quite disturbing. I don't mind letting people struggle if it's their own fault (I'll never forget that one lady who had bi-monthly hair appointments for $200 each at a specialist instead of going to a regular salon for $20 right after complaining that she wasn't sure how she was going to pay her bills) but you can't control whether or not you get sick. Except maybe my aunt, who went to the hospital for a cocaine-related stroke. Either these costs need to go down, or there needs to be a better way to help the people struggling to pay for their medical care. Lord knows it won't be the insurance companies, who'd let someone die for a dollar.

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Super Fightin Prototype
David2074
I hope they make some progress because US drug prices in general are embarrassing.

So are other medical costs in general. Retiring and switching to a self purchased umbrella medical insurance (as in only covers big stuff) made me really look at the cost of even common stuff like an office visit to a GP. The clinic I used to go to for a routine issue (sinus infection or whatever) was up to over $200 per office visit. I found a nurse practitioner with a smaller practice who only charges $60 and gives me better service and less doesn't make me sit forever in the waiting room.
Oh, and last year I saw an Ear/Nose/Throat specialist for my sinuses and a quick exam / conversation with the guy (about 15 minutes total) cost me over $350.


It is pretty disconcerting, isn't it? They're cheaper in other countries but they get away with what practically amounts to highway robbery in the US for who even knows what reason. Lack of a price ceiling, maybe? confused


Definitely their is no price ceiling that I'm aware of. I'm not sure how you'd set one since I assume different drugs really do cost different amounts of R&D money but it's very clear it is a 'what the market will bear' pricing scheme.

If you recall (last year I think) there were articles about people mail ordering drugs from other countries to the US because they were cheaper. Same drugs they were getting in the US - just hella cheaper. Drug companies were howling for feds to put a stop to it. Part of the argument was safety - "Less QA / Different laws / Might be counterfeit or tainted!". But part of it was acknowledging they really do sell those drugs in other countries for cheaper. Kind of along the lines of "Yes we sell those AIDS drugs to African folks for a shitload less than we sell them in the US but that's all those poor people can afford and if we sell them for that low price in the USA it we won't be able to afford to help those folks in Africa / we'll make less profit".

The problem with that last part is it tacitly admits they are forcing US customers to foot part of the health bill for citizens of other countries. And not just. USA. Basically any country they think they can squeeze the money out of. While meds are only one part of the issue I wonder if we would be better off with nationalized drug companies. Pay the scientists well to keep them on staff but don't pay billions to the shareholders. Instead those extra billions would be 'distributed' to the citizens in the form of reasonable prices for meds. It could also be political goodwill for countries to share new drug discoveries with other countries like they sometimes do with new methods of treatment.

Greed is the cause of a lot of grief in the world. Or to quote the old Bible verse "The love of money is the root of all evil". (not money as many people misquote it but love of - as in greed).

Vector Theta's Husbando

Mega Man-Lover

David2074
Super Fightin Prototype
David2074
I hope they make some progress because US drug prices in general are embarrassing.

So are other medical costs in general. Retiring and switching to a self purchased umbrella medical insurance (as in only covers big stuff) made me really look at the cost of even common stuff like an office visit to a GP. The clinic I used to go to for a routine issue (sinus infection or whatever) was up to over $200 per office visit. I found a nurse practitioner with a smaller practice who only charges $60 and gives me better service and less doesn't make me sit forever in the waiting room.
Oh, and last year I saw an Ear/Nose/Throat specialist for my sinuses and a quick exam / conversation with the guy (about 15 minutes total) cost me over $350.


It is pretty disconcerting, isn't it? They're cheaper in other countries but they get away with what practically amounts to highway robbery in the US for who even knows what reason. Lack of a price ceiling, maybe? confused


Definitely their is no price ceiling that I'm aware of. I'm not sure how you'd set one since I assume different drugs really do cost different amounts of R&D money but it's very clear it is a 'what the market will bear' pricing scheme.

If you recall (last year I think) there were articles about people mail ordering drugs from other countries to the US because they were cheaper. Same drugs they were getting in the US - just hella cheaper. Drug companies were howling for feds to put a stop to it. Part of the argument was safety - "Less QA / Different laws / Might be counterfeit or tainted!". But part of it was acknowledging they really do sell those drugs in other countries for cheaper. Kind of along the lines of "Yes we sell those AIDS drugs to African folks for a shitload less than we sell them in the US but that's all those poor people can afford and if we sell them for that low price in the USA it we won't be able to afford to help those folks in Africa / we'll make less profit".

The problem with that last part is it tacitly admits they are forcing US customers to foot part of the health bill for citizens of other countries. And not just. USA. Basically any country they think they can squeeze the money out of. While meds are only one part of the issue I wonder if we would be better off with nationalized drug companies. Pay the scientists well to keep them on staff but don't pay billions to the shareholders. Instead those extra billions would be 'distributed' to the citizens in the form of reasonable prices for meds. It could also be political goodwill for countries to share new drug discoveries with other countries like they sometimes do with new methods of treatment.

Greed is the cause of a lot of grief in the world. Or to quote the old Bible verse "The love of money is the root of all evil". (not money as many people misquote it but love of - as in greed).


To me, price ceilings would be based on the type of drug rather than an all-around ceiling, which would just encourage companies to push prices of certain drugs higher.

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Super Fightin Prototype
David2074
Super Fightin Prototype
David2074
I hope they make some progress because US drug prices in general are embarrassing.

So are other medical costs in general. Retiring and switching to a self purchased umbrella medical insurance (as in only covers big stuff) made me really look at the cost of even common stuff like an office visit to a GP. The clinic I used to go to for a routine issue (sinus infection or whatever) was up to over $200 per office visit. I found a nurse practitioner with a smaller practice who only charges $60 and gives me better service and less doesn't make me sit forever in the waiting room.
Oh, and last year I saw an Ear/Nose/Throat specialist for my sinuses and a quick exam / conversation with the guy (about 15 minutes total) cost me over $350.


It is pretty disconcerting, isn't it? They're cheaper in other countries but they get away with what practically amounts to highway robbery in the US for who even knows what reason. Lack of a price ceiling, maybe? confused


Definitely their is no price ceiling that I'm aware of. I'm not sure how you'd set one since I assume different drugs really do cost different amounts of R&D money but it's very clear it is a 'what the market will bear' pricing scheme.

If you recall (last year I think) there were articles about people mail ordering drugs from other countries to the US because they were cheaper. Same drugs they were getting in the US - just hella cheaper. Drug companies were howling for feds to put a stop to it. Part of the argument was safety - "Less QA / Different laws / Might be counterfeit or tainted!". But part of it was acknowledging they really do sell those drugs in other countries for cheaper. Kind of along the lines of "Yes we sell those AIDS drugs to African folks for a shitload less than we sell them in the US but that's all those poor people can afford and if we sell them for that low price in the USA it we won't be able to afford to help those folks in Africa / we'll make less profit".

The problem with that last part is it tacitly admits they are forcing US customers to foot part of the health bill for citizens of other countries. And not just. USA. Basically any country they think they can squeeze the money out of. While meds are only one part of the issue I wonder if we would be better off with nationalized drug companies. Pay the scientists well to keep them on staff but don't pay billions to the shareholders. Instead those extra billions would be 'distributed' to the citizens in the form of reasonable prices for meds. It could also be political goodwill for countries to share new drug discoveries with other countries like they sometimes do with new methods of treatment.

Greed is the cause of a lot of grief in the world. Or to quote the old Bible verse "The love of money is the root of all evil". (not money as many people misquote it but love of - as in greed).


To me, price ceilings would be based on the type of drug rather than an all-around ceiling, which would just encourage companies to push prices of certain drugs higher.


How does one decide which drug / what price?
On the surface it sounds easy to say "Oh! Cancer and AIDS drugs should get top priority because those diseases kill people".
But then what about much more common and cheaper drugs like the various meds for high blood pressure or diabetes? Those problems do not (always) kill but a much larger amount of people need them and the problems associated with those conditions cause numerous other related health issues.
If you specify prices for certain drugs it would be a de facto degree of which drugs to produce because drug companies would still go for profit. Thus what they would develop / produce would be had the highest $$ from the equation (drug sell price X amount we think we can sell) - anticipated cost of R&D and production = net profit.
I think the only way that might work is if you also mandated production. But that would be difficult to enforce. Likely for unprofitable new drugs it would become, "Um yeah, we're still working on that / have not perfected it yet / we'll be in touch".
It's nice to see doctors sticking up for their patients. heart

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum