NationStates Jolt Archive

A friend of mine knowing my interest in health care and cancer care sent me this link to a BBC news clip. It is pretty self explanatory and brings to the fore front a serious issue that cancer patients in Britian are facing.

The drug in question is avastin, and is used often in cancer treatment in America. My friends that have been treated with avastin had no problems getting their health insurance to cover it.

My heart breaks for this lady and at the same time I become more adamant than ever that a national health care system is not what is needed in this country at all.

There has to be a better way for everyone.

Accept my apologies that I cannot stay today to discuss this, but I did want to leave it with you all for your thoughts and comments. My work calls, but I will be back as I am very interested in anyones thoughts on this.

Please discuss.

http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/player/nol/newsid_7210000/newsid_7219500/7219569.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&ms_javascript=true&nol_storyid=7219569&bbcws=2

rationed health care will not work in the US. nationalized medicine would mean that we would pay taxes for that AND we would pay for private health insurance so we can get the treatments we want.

i cant see anyone in the US waiting 18 months to get cataract surgery or 6 years to get hip replacement. and no politician is going to let "grammy" die because the health system refuses to pay for cutting edge cancer drugs. it would be political suicide.

id rather address the problems we have now and patch it together with chewing gum and bailing wire than to go with federally run health care.

avastin is still not accepted in the UK as it is a rather new treatment (accepted in many nations regardless) fact is a review board is needed to go through this first before we spend Billions on a drug that may in fact be a placebo

argument against universal health care it is not

My heart breaks for this lady and at the same time I become more adamant than ever that a national health care system is not what is needed in this country at all.

Michal Moore's youtube replies have made this awful easy to refute
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Re%3A+SiCKO+Movie&search_type=

I can't see the clip at the moment, but these things are often misleading. A similar argument was made a while back with a different drug (Herceptin I believe). It was only clinically proven to work in late stage breast cancer but early-mid stage patients were demanding it anyway. But naturally it wasn't in the media's interest to publicise the fact. And similar things have happened several times with patients demanding treatments that aren't clinically proven to be beneficial.

I can't say if this is the case here but it wouldn't surprise me.

After a quick bit of research it shows that the drug hasn't been sanctioned by the regulatory body yet, so the NHS won't fund it until it's been ok'd by them.

And what she's complaining about is that the Dept of Health doesn't allow patients mixing private and public care by paying to 'top up' their care with unsanctioned drugs. But have a couple of patients on a grandfather clause that are allowed to do it.

And the NHS beats the heck out of the US system imho.

Thanks for the info regarding the NHS and that avastin isn't an approved drug in Britain. I did not realize that and that explains it somewhat.

It is approved in the US, though some insurance companies are not happy at the cost. I have friends that are survivors due to it so naturally I see the upside without question...and it apalls me that this lady cannot get it.

I wonder can she come to the US and get it? Would that jeopardize the national care she has? She already sold her assets to raise the money for the drug.

Today's American Myth is brought to you by: Ashmoria!
i cant see anyone in the US waiting 18 months to get cataract surgery or 6 years to get hip replacement.

I don't mind the NHS saying they won't provide the drug, but I don't understand why patients wouldn't be permitted to buy the drug themselves. Who benefits from that?

I don't mind the NHS saying they won't provide the drug, but I don't understand why patients wouldn't be permitted to buy the drug themselves. Who benefits from that?

It's not who benefits... it's the dangers. If people are allowed to buy drugs that are not recognized as safe, then there would be drug stores popping up all over selling drugs promising cures to everything from cancer to ulcers and everything in between. Plus, it creates a two-tier system, in which people with less money can't afford to buy the cutting edge drugs, and creates dividers in society, and just generally causes a lot of problems.

It is approved in the US, though some insurance companies are not happy at the cost. I have friends that are survivors due to it so naturally I see the upside without question...and it apalls me that this lady cannot get it.

the NHS can't say it will help, won't pay for it and will not then entertain the thought of looking after the woman when she deliberately goes against NHS advice and needs care because of it

I wonder can she come to the US and get it? Would that jeopardize the national care she has? She already sold her assets to raise the money for the drug.

I think you need a big board to talk about that one first

I don't mind the NHS saying they won't provide the drug, but I don't understand why patients wouldn't be permitted to buy the drug themselves. Who benefits from that?

it stops crazy things like people taking pills that turn them into octopus and having the NHS pay for all the care for a stupid decision that it was against in the first place *hopes nobody remembers Cherie Blaire*

Today's American Myth is brought to you by: Ashmoria!

oh you think that an american WOULD happily wait 18 months for cataract surgery?

oh you think that an american WOULD happily wait 18 months for cataract surgery?

a British woman would?

a British woman would?

i should hope not. and yet that it a typical wait time in the UK. in the US its less than a month.

I would rather drive on a road with occaisonal potholes than having to pay a toll every time I used it.

*The OP*
"The NHS doesn't want people dying in its hospitals from taking not-actually-approved-here-yet drugs shocker!"

I wonder can she come to the US and get it? Would that jeopardize the national care she has? She already sold her assets to raise the money for the drug.
Aye, she could do that, the NHS is alright with that kind of thing.

"The NHS doesn't want people dying in its hospitals from taking not-actually-approved-here-yet drugs shocker!"

Ok so why hasn't it been approved? The film says it has been licensed, but not approved by NHS. What does that mean?

It has passed rigorous testing here and has been used with success here. I have seen it first hand with people in my cancer group.

I don't want to start a fuss, but it to me feels like in England it is ok to let those who can afford it die just because the poor can't afford it.

Are they not approving it because it is so expensive? Is that something that can be speculated out loud even?:(

Aye, she could do that, the NHS is alright with that kind of thing.

I see. Then she should come here and get it. :)

Ok so why hasn't it been approved? The film says it has been licensed, but not approved by NHS. What does that mean?
"If you take it, you probably won't die, but you might, so we're not giving it to you in our hospitals"
It has passed rigorous testing here and has been used with success here. I have seen it first hand with people in my cancer group.
The NHS doesn't like it, and they're the final arbiter.
I don't want to start a fuss, but it to me feels like in England it is ok to let those who can afford it die just because the poor can't afford it.

Are they not approving it because it is so expensive? Is that something that can be speculated out loud even?:(
The extremely high cost for a drug that's not been proven to be any more effective in almost all cases than the existing drugs is definitely a factor. The NHS only gets a budget so large, you know.

I don't want to start a fuss, but it to me feels like in England it is ok to let those who can afford it die just because the poor can't afford it.


Why are you concerned about this rather than how in your country it is okay to let those who can't afford it die?

This is a tragedy. Why does she have to choose either private pay or government healthcare - especially if the government doesn't provide the treatment in question?

I understand why it hasn't - a review board wants to go over it - but surely she should be able to take it without losing her NHS coverage.

This is a tragedy. Why does she have to choose either private pay or government healthcare - especially if the government doesn't provide the treatment in question?

I understand why it hasn't - a review board wants to go over it - but surely she should be able to take it without losing her NHS coverage.

You'd think so, yes. But given that the NHS is currently giving the late Tsarist bureaucracy a decent competition for the title of "least efficient, most impenetrable and least human organisation seen since 1900", perhaps not.

Why are you concerned about this rather than how in your country it is okay to let those who can't afford it die?

That isn't true at all. Our hospitals, must administer care to the indigent in a matter of life and death. They cannot turn away someone due to a lack of insurance.

They can deny care to someone if it isn't life and death though. Most if not all states have Medicaid programs that cover uninsured children. It is income based though. So only applies to the poor. The disabled get coverage regardless of income and the elderly.

Sadly one of the biggest problems in this country is the cost of insurance.

A recent study showed that 60% of those uninsured made over $50,000 per year income but simply didn't choose to purchase insurance with their money. Their children are uninsured by parental choice.

So the problem here is not just about people who can't afford insurance, it is about people who won't afford it. They choose vehicles, houses etc to spend on instead. The expense it horrid, I can understand it in many ways.

What I would like to see is insurance companies regulated. They are the rulers of the universe...ours anyway. :(

I can't see the clip at the moment, but these things are often misleading. A similar argument was made a while back with a different drug (Herceptin I believe). It was only clinically proven to work in late stage breast cancer but early-mid stage patients were demanding it anyway. But naturally it wasn't in the media's interest to publicise the fact. And similar things have happened several times with patients demanding treatments that aren't clinically proven to be beneficial.

I can't say if this is the case here but it wouldn't surprise me.

After a quick bit of research it shows that the drug hasn't been sanctioned by the regulatory body yet, so the NHS won't fund it until it's been ok'd by them.

And what she's complaining about is that the Dept of Health doesn't allow patients mixing private and public care by paying to 'top up' their care with unsanctioned drugs. But have a couple of patients on a grandfather clause that are allowed to do it.

And the NHS beats the heck out of the US system imho.

See, this is a lot of sense. Why is Pelacanus ignoring it?

Any problems with national health care are ultimately caused by having a private provider operating against it. Inevitably the private provider will weaken the national one.

You'd think so, yes. But given that the NHS is currently giving the late Tsarist bureaucracy a decent competition for the title of "least efficient, most impenetrable and least human organisation seen since 1900", perhaps not.
Compared to the history of private health, it's track record is outstanding.

See, this is a lot of sense. Why is Pelacanus ignoring it?

:confused:I didn't ignore it at all.


Thanks for the info regarding the NHS and that avastin isn't an approved drug in Britain. I did not realize that and that explains it somewhat.

:confused:I didn't ignore it at all.

Oh, whoops. Sorry. I didn't see the full post quoted anywhere in your posts so I figured you were ignoring it.

Oh, whoops. Sorry. I didn't see the full post quoted anywhere in your posts so I figured you were ignoring it.


No, not at all. Some others said much the same so I just posted without a quote. I am not so great with the how to of quoting more than one poster. :p

Someone debating that the US health system is better than Engand.

Bwahahaha! Even an insured American, is often worse off than a Brit. The job of a medical insurance company is to improve the wealth of the company. That involves pushing away as many people as possible, and saying they actually don't need treatment, or it's experimental, or a pre-existing condition, or any other weaselly tactic available.

I would be interested if her lawyers who are working for free, don't have contracts with pharmaceutical companies.

If the OPs heart is breaking for this case, why doesn't it break for all the uninsured Americans. Poor people aren't as worthy of sympathy?

avastin is still not accepted in the UK as it is a rather new treatment (accepted in many nations regardless) fact is a review board is needed to go through this first before we spend Billions on a drug that may in fact be a placebo
Quite true.

I don’t want to start a fuss, but it to me feels like in England it is ok to let those who can afford it die just because the poor can’t afford it.
No, the NHS is concerned with both the tight budget it has been given, and the safety of patients when given a new drug.

Avastin, even being one of the cheaper cancer treatments, is incredibly expensive. I’ve heard different figures floating about the place, but IIRC the cost is about £2000 (roughly $4000) p/m with the treatment lasting for around eight to ten months. That’s, say, £20,000 per patient, which is about the amount that an NHS nurse gets when starting a job (£19,683 p/a, I believe nurses start at the bottom of the Band 5 pay scale (http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=766)).

So, do we give treatment to one individual, or do we hire a nurse who can treat many hundreds of persons? The NHS is run on a largely utilitarian basis, so they’re going to plump for the latter (or at least, they’re going to spend the £20,000 on a more widespread measure). I feel sorry for those who are afflicted with cancer, but emotional stories from Auntie Beeb shouldn’t sway the NHS from its task of fairly treating as many people as possible.

My heart breaks for this lady and at the same time I become more adamant than ever that a national health care system is not what is needed in this country at all.
Where does your opinion on it stand when we bring up the folders full of evidence of insurance not covering necessary drugs, or covering a fraction of necessary treatment?

It's not who benefits... it's the dangers. If people are allowed to buy drugs that are not recognized as safe, then there would be drug stores popping up all over selling drugs promising cures to everything from cancer to ulcers and everything in between.
This I get. If the drugs aren't safe, retailers shouldn't be allowed to claim they are.
Plus, it creates a two-tier system, in which people with less money can't afford to buy the cutting edge drugs, and creates dividers in society, and just generally causes a lot of problems.
Ths is the part I don't understand. If the option is either to let no one have the drug, or to let some people have the drug, how is letting no one have it the better option?

Compared to the history of private health, it's track record is outstanding.

No it isn't. Perhaps compared to the peculiarly American system, however, others are excellent.

I sense, perhaps, that there is little point even bothering to argue this with you. Precious little else has managed to make you think.

Ths is the part I don't understand. If the option is either to let no one have the drug, or to let some people have the drug, how is letting no one have it the better option?
She can get the drugs, it just means she'll have to get all her treatment done privately. You'll find that any doctor in the world would not like 2 parties treating the same person for the same condition. This is what would happen if the NHS let her get the drugs from another doctor.
The NHS also does not want a two tiered system, where well off people pay for medical privileges. A good and just society believes all people should get the medical treatment they need, not the medical treatment they can afford.
Avastin at this point is too new, experimental, and to some point, too expensive, to justify as a need.

Ths is the part I don't understand. If the option is either to let no one have the drug, or to let some people have the drug, how is letting no one have it the better option?
Because it's not an approved drug?