by Jim Campbell
In today’s UK Telegraph, Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent reported on Cancer sufferers refused life-extending drugs despite Government pledge.
In her expose she reported that, Dying cancer patients have been refused costly life-extending drugs on cost grounds despite a Government promise to end the “scandal” forever.
Her investigation follows the article written in the Examiner last year,”Obama Care already begun to interfere with FDA approval for cancer treatment and future research.”
The FDA advisory panel has recently decided to remove the indication for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer because of a modest increases in prolonging life, with no demonstration of an overall survival benefit.
Following public outcry from both oncologists and patients the FDA has decided to reevaluate the position of its own advisory committee.
Avastin is one of an entire different classification of drugs designed to treat a patients individual tumor. It works as an angiogenesis inhibitor, which means it’s mechanism of action is to shut down blood flow to metastatic tumors.
With the possible exception of brain cancer, the vast majority of patients dying from metastatic disease do so because metastases appear in the liver, lung and bone, with resultant organ failure, ultimately resulting in death.
Fortunately many breast cancer patients have had over all increased survival with Avastin combined with Taxol the current standard. Should they be denied treatment and reimbursement?
The elephant in the room that people refuse to address is simple. Insurance companies are currently reimbursing for this medication for breast cancer and the government may not want to under the new health care law.
Buried among the more than 2000 pages of legislation is section 262a, which essentially leaves it up to “The Secretary of Health and Human Services,” currently Kathleen Sebelius, to among other things, determine (III) the availability and effectiveness of pharmaco-therapies and immunizations to treat and prevent any illness and (IV) any other criteria, including the needs of children and other vulnerable populations, that the Secretary considers appropriate.
What, the “Secretary” a government bureaucrat, is now stepping between the physician and his patient? Clearly, the current administration will be rationing resources as do insurance companies.
The primary difference being, health insurance providers must return profit to investors and answer to them. As we have seen the current administration believes it doesn’t answer to “We the People,” and are supposed to follow them blindly as they seek greater control over our lives and freedom.
Under such a system, what incentive is there for the pharmaceutical industry to invest billions of dollars on research when at the whim of bureaucrats their product once FDA approved will not be available on the U.S. and worldwide markets.
Could this be a way for the current administration to give Social Security and Medicare a ‘shot in the arm’ by insuring that those with cancer won’t live long enough to collect their promised benefits? With this administration as they have demonstrated repeatedly, anything is possible.
dancingczars
jcscuba
