tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post2124318236564243259..comments2023-12-10T10:06:41.979+00:00Comments on mutations of mortality: Escalating costs of cancer drugs.Terry Hamblinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-57165756681410121762007-12-10T17:02:00.000+00:002007-12-10T17:02:00.000+00:00October 2006 not recent?October 2006 not recent?Terry Hamblinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-77023398383577293742007-12-10T05:27:00.000+00:002007-12-10T05:27:00.000+00:00Terry the approval for Herceptin in Australia was ...Terry the approval for Herceptin in Australia was not recent.<BR/><BR/>The Government has accepted a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) to list the drug trastuzumab (Herceptin®) on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).<BR/><BR/>From 1 October 2006, Herceptin has become available on the PBS for women who are diagnosed with HER-2 positive breast cancer, established by testing using a HER-2 gene amplification test. Herceptin will be administered concurrently with adjuvant chemotherapy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-7011842199521736772007-12-06T03:50:00.000+00:002007-12-06T03:50:00.000+00:00Marketing does sell drugs. You probably didn't se...Marketing does sell drugs. You probably didn't see the TV ads for Celebrex, but it was heavily advertised and sales took off accordingly. Celebrex wasn't the only COX-2 inhibitor on the market then, there was Vioxx as well. So marketing is one way of increasing your sales.<BR/><BR/>It's just like selling cars. Ford, Toyota, and Nissan advertise heavily. It's because there is more than one choice.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if Gleevic is marketed. It probably is in medical journals and at conferences such as ASH. But there certainly is no need to advertise to the CML patient. He knows (or his doctor tells him) this is the gold standard for treating CML. Marketing when there is one drug isn't necessary.<BR/><BR/>What I meant by 'curing cancer will be easy' isn't FINDING a cure being easy, but treating it once a 'cure' is found. Treating CML is pretty easy. (Obviously some people develop resistance, etc., but I'm just making a point here.) That's what I meant.<BR/><BR/>To extend the discussion about marketing, Rogaine (minoxidil) is marketed. Now if there was a slam-dunk cure for baldness, there would be a line stretching halfway to Mars when it became available. However, minoxidil doesn't work very well, so they have to market it. <BR/><BR/>I guess the adage would be, the better your product works, and the less competition you have, the less marketing you need to do.<BR/><BR/>I must confess I don't know how inefficient the American healthcare system is. Obviously, we'd all benefit if it were more efficient. On the other hand, the Nazis ran a pretty tight ship, but nobody wants to live under a system like that. <BR/><BR/>It's good to discuss these things, especially when it's going to go away when Hilary is elected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-1381071237072208672007-12-05T20:02:00.000+00:002007-12-05T20:02:00.000+00:00Actually, I am not a wholehearted supporter of the...Actually, I am not a wholehearted supporter of the NHS - I see many things wrong with it and I think that many insurance-based systems do teh job as well or better. Nor do I decry the amount of money Americans spend on themselves - what I dislike about the American system is teh amount of waste in it. If Americans spent that amount of money in a sensible system it really would be the best in teh world.<BR/><BR/>The research costs for most drugs are paid by Universities who develop the agents. Pharmaceutical companies do spend a lot on testing the drugs, though these are not by any means all American companies - Aventis, Roche, GSK, Astra Zeneca, Bayer and Novartis are all European companies (there are many more) and comprise more than half the industry. However, much as they spend generously on research, they spend much more on marketing. <BR/><BR/>Your assumptions on what I do with my money are wide of the mark; I certainly believe in free enterprise, but I also believe in charity. <BR/><BR/>I wish you were right about how easy it is going to be to cure cancer. But they told me the same thing 50 years ago and it just gets harder.Terry Hamblinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-4187502950233866422007-12-05T13:11:00.000+00:002007-12-05T13:11:00.000+00:00Anonymous said: "Since Americans pay full price f...Anonymous said: "Since Americans pay full price for their drugs, we are subsidizing the researchs costs for the rest of the world."<BR/><BR/>Actually, Americans with good health insurance do not pay full price for drugs. Our health insurance companies negotiate discounts with health care providers, and the bigger insurance companies can get bigger discounts. Following is a common scenario for an American with a good job that provides good health insurance. A medical provider or drug company charges $1,000. Our health insurance company negotiated a 50% discount, so if our policy includes a 10% co-pay then we pay $50 and our insurance company pays $450 of the $1,000 charge. Discounts of 50% and up are common for large insurance companies. <BR/><BR/>So someone with good health insurance typically pays very little out of pocket for those drugs, someone with not so good health insurance pays a lot, and someone with no health insurance may go bankrupt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-81145586171433962992007-12-05T04:15:00.000+00:002007-12-05T04:15:00.000+00:00I think it should be noted that, in general, you a...I think it should be noted that, in general, you are a supporter of the UK's National Health Service, and you decry the amount of money Americans spend on themselves for health care.<BR/><BR/>It should be remembered that it costs over $800 million to steer a drug through the American clinical trials system. Since Americans pay full price for their drugs, we are subsidizing the researchs costs for the rest of the world.<BR/><BR/>I'd love to see prices go up in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, so prices would ease a bit here in the United States.<BR/><BR/>You believe in the free enterprise system, I assume. Then you must realize that the pharmaceutical companies are in business for one thing, and one thing only. That is to make money. It is not a charity, it is not a warm and fuzzy business. It is a cutthroat business like all businesses are.<BR/><BR/>Make a profit for your shareholders, or die.<BR/><BR/>I assume you invest money. I don't think you invest money hoping to lose it. You expect a fair return on your investment, as do I.<BR/><BR/>We should also remember that the gravy train for pharmaceutical companies runs out after 20 years, and the drug is free to go generic.<BR/><BR/>The expenditures will be worse before they become better. Eventually, curing cancer will be about as complicated as changing the oil in your car.<BR/><BR/>I won't be around for those days, but it will be absolutely wonderful to see the unemployment office filled with out-of-work oncologists. I mean no disrespect, but it would still be wonderful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com