Review of prostate cancer drug Provenge renews medical cost-benefit debate

[liberal N proud]

:wtf:

Federal officials are conducting an unusual review to determine whether the government should pay for an expensive new vaccine for treating prostate cancer, rekindling debate over whether some therapies are too costly.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which dictate what treatments the massive federal health-insurance program for the elderly will cover, is running a "national coverage analysis" of Provenge, the first vaccine approved for treating any cancer. The treatment costs $93,000 a patient and has been shown to extend patients' lives by about four months.

Although Medicare is not supposed to take cost into consideration when making such rulings, the decision to launch a formal examination has raised concerns among cancer experts, drug companies, lawmakers, prostate cancer patients and advocacy groups.

Provenge, which was approved for advanced prostate cancer in April, is the latest in a series of new high-priced cancer treatments that appear to eke out only a few more months of life, prompting alarm about their cost.

"This absolutely is the opening salvo in the drive to save money in the health-care system," said Skip Lockwood, who heads Zero - the Project to End Prostate Cancer, a Washington-based lobbying group. "If the cost wasn't a consideration, this wouldn't even be under discussion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/07/AR2010110705205.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

:nuke:Putting a dollar value on your life or death.

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. It's not life or death. Utter strawman.

It's someone circling the drain. Is it would $93,000 to give them four more months?

I don't think it is.

[JoePhilly]

3. Bet Dick Cheney and George W. Bush have plans that would cover it.

But that's only fair, they are both worth so much more than you or I.

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. No plan would cover that.

Not sure what those two have to do with it.

[JoePhilly]

9. Then, I hate to say it, but you are not paying attention ...

When you are very, very wealthy, you can get far better insurance coverage than the average American.

Let me give you an example. I technically, fall into the top 2% for income (my wife and I together based on income). We are not rich however. Our families were both lower middle class when we were young. So there is no trust fund, no inheritance. But, we do well. And so, as part of our health care, almost everything is covered.

A few years ago, I had a very serious injury to both legs. I had to have major surgery, and spent about 4 weeks in a rehab facility in a PRIVATE room. My insurance covered it all ... including about 20k for a replacement "donor tendon". Then, I was covered for a long set of physical therapy treatments.

Meanwhile, my sister, not making what I make, is in a car accident, severe broken bones, and her treatment was minimal in comparison. She now walks with a terrible limp. Her PT coverage was almost nil.

I'm a high paid employee, and I get "fixed" ... she isn't ... so screw her.

And trust me, Cheney, who has been "saved" over and over, gets better coverage than I do for sure.

Your coverage, sadly is tied to your "worth".

And that's what those two have to do with it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. I know there is solid-gold coverage, but no plan would cover $93K for 120 days.

Unless the premium was close to $93k, or close to it.

[JoePhilly]

12. That's not what happens.

If you are in the highest plans, you get covered. They pay for that by cutting treatment on the lower end.

Everyone won't get the 93k coverage ... only the folks on the top ... after all, they are more valuable to America.

[Dreamer Tatum]

13. Sorry, not true.

Just false. I get your point, but that is not correct.

[liberal N proud]

4. Ask their families that question

One might think like you another might want as much time with their loved one as possible.

Who should make that call? Doctors, not insurance companies and the government.

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. You just said "ask the families,"

yet you're saying let the doctors decide.

Which is silly, since no one would ever say no.

Someone, at some point, is going to have to deal with sticky issues like this, or healthcare will bankrupt us.

Flame away - don't care. There are some here who think no one should EARN $93,000 in a year, so why would we as
a society spend $93,000 for four months tacked onto a miserable existence?

[liberal N proud]

7. You got me there, but my point is someone other than the insurance companies

Doctors and families should make the decision together. Not bureaucracy.

btw: I would love to make $93K/year

[uppityperson]

14. "since no one would ever say no?" Some would. It depends on the quality of life.

It would depend on whether or not the person was willing to have that amount of money spent for 4 more months. Some will say yes, some no.

It depends on several factors.

The article reads like this is in line with other chemotherapies as far as cost. Which would leave it up to the doctor and patient to decide.

[Hannah Bell]

2. "provenge"? winner of the worst brand name contest.

[hedgehog]

8. The issue is not length of life but quality of life. Does Provenge mean another

four months of going about normal activities pain free, or four more months in the hospital?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

10. Prostate cancer is negatively affected by so many other sundry

items, indole three carbinol comes to mind first, there are others.