Jaw-Dropping Prices of New Cancer Drugs Pose Ethics Dilemma
Jul 14th, 2008 • Posted in: NewsOncologists, who pay for medicines up front, sometimes find themselves in personal debt when patients can’t pay or insurance companies won’t reimburse; many wonder whether the astounding cost is worth a few extra weeks or months of life
NEW YORK
Breathtakingly expensive cancer drugs are changing the ethos of medical treatment, according to a series of press reports last week.
The Wall Street Journal describes how hyper-expensive chemotherapy agents — some of which cost more than $100,000 a year — are creating money issues that disrupt relationships with patients, cause doctors to go into debt, and threaten to interfere with treatment options.
According to the Journal, unlike most physicians who write prescriptions that are filled at a pharmacy, oncologists buy many of their medications, which are given intravenously, up front. When patients don’t pay or when insurance companies are slow to reimburse or refuse payment outright, physicians get stuck with the bill, often winding up in deep personal debt.
Even for patients with insurance, the co-pays on new cancer drugs can be well beyond the patient’s reach, forcing doctors, as Journal reporter Marilyn Chase puts it, “into new and nerve-racking territory: weighing costs alongside a drug’s potential effectiveness.”
UPI and MarketWatch report that one of these extremely expensive cancer medications, Avastin, poses a particularly vexing dilemma: It may prolong life by only a few months or weeks at a price many times higher than other treatments.
In Canada, Avastin — after months of lobbying by cancer patients who went into debt and held fundraisers so they could buy the medication — was approved for reimbursement by Ontario’s government-run health system. Provincial officials, according to the Canadian Press, have earmarked $30 million for Avastin, along with $20 million for two other pricey cancer drugs.
Sources: Wall Street Journal, July 7 — UPI, July 7 — MarketWatch, July 7 — Canadian Press, July 2.
For more information, see: Related Newsline story, July 2, 2007 — Related Newsline story, May 29, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 18, 2005 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 6, 2003 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 2, 2003.
Print This Story
Email This Story
