'Living drug' gets go-ahead

[Taf]

The US has approved the first treatment to redesign a patient's own immune system so it attacks cancer.

The regulator - the US Food and Drug Administration - said its decision was a "historic" moment and medicine was now "entering a new frontier".

The company Novartis is charging $475,000 (£367,000) for the therapy, which leaves 83% of people free of a type of blood cancer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41094990

[Osem]

Let's hope it works and the prices come down so more people can benefit.

[007stuart]

Personally I see the price as being reasonable given that 4 out 5 people treated are cancer free.

We need to factor in the cost saving of treating those who are now cancer free. I had 2 drugs that cost just under £10000 in total to prepare me for a kidney transplant. I was fortunate in that the transplant was a success and have not needed dialysis for nearly 4 years now. So, in my case, that £10000 was well spent.

Oh and don't forget the effects of being cancer free on the patient and their loved ones - you cant put a price on that!

[Osem]

Originally Posted by 007stuart

Personally I see the price as being reasonable given that 4 out 5 people treated are cancer free.

We need to factor in the cost saving of treating those who are now cancer free. I had 2 drugs that cost just under £10000 in total to prepare me for a kidney transplant. I was fortunate in that the transplant was a success and have not needed dialysis for nearly 4 years now. So, in my case, that £10000 was well spent.

Oh and don't forget the effects of being cancer free on the patient and their loved ones - you cant put a price on that!

The loved ones can't but the bean counters do for obvious reasons. Of course this treatment could save lots of money in the longer term but long-termism doesn't seem to be much of a feature of modern society sadly.

[007stuart]

Originally Posted by Osem

The loved ones can't but the bean counters do for obvious reasons. Of course this treatment could save lots of money in the longer term but long-termism doesn't seem to be much of a feature of modern society sadly.

Whilst I can see short termism is more tempting to the private sector as repeat business is more profitable, where value for money is concerned even the "bean counters" in the NHS have to embrace therapies that do have high short term costs as the "opportunity cost" of not adopting these new treatments will lead to further reductions in the number and scope of treatments available to new patients given the need to restrain the growth in the NHS budgets.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by 007stuart

Whilst I can see short termism is more tempting to the private sector as repeat business is more profitable, where value for money is concerned even the "bean counters" in the NHS have to embrace therapies that do have high short term costs as the "opportunity cost" of not adopting these new treatments will lead to further reductions in the number and scope of treatments available to new patients given the need to restrain the growth in the NHS budgets.

They don't do that though - they have budgets to achieve and potential future savings don't usually enter into the equation. It's the same with local authorities who spend fortunes patching up roads on an ad-hoc basis as repeated repairs are required over a period of years rather than spend more up front on proper resurfacing which does away with all that future expense. That's not how it should be but is how it is sadly.

It makes no sense for costly NHS beds to be blocked by people who can't be sent home because someone hasn't ordered or delivered a cheap commode for example due to cuts somewhere else. It shouldn't be happening but it is and if more was spent sorting that nonsense out the NHS would be able to treat far more people.

I believe the cost for long term treatment set against the statistical likelihood of survival/reoccurrence is one of the key measurements NICE (the NHS don't do this part) take into account. It will be a question of how big an increase do you get in average survival vs the cost.

A lot of the time the drug offers questionable, if any, improvement at a much higher cost so it gets rejected and gets met by headlines of how they're refusing a patient a drug that could save their life - the 'could' doing a lot of work in the headline.

If this is a dramatic increase though it will probably be approved. It's a question of saving lives in the end.