UK health care scandal

Diggler · #1 01-31-2008, 06:18 AM

This woman has breast cancer and wants to buy Avastin, which halts tumors but is not yet approved in the NHS.

So she put her house up for sale to pay for it and possibly save her life, but the Department of Health said that if she buys this life-saving drug on her own (since NHS won't), she will have to pay for ALL her treatment.

Quote:

You either go all NHS and its free, or you go all private and you pay for everything.

A Department of Health spokesman said: "If those who can afford it start "topping up" their care it will create a two tier NHS. What about those who can't afford Avastin?"

Socialism is the ultimate in fairness. It makes everyone equally miserable.

I Have Been Denied Vital Cancer Drug

i_got_a_mohawk · #2 01-31-2008, 06:33 AM

If they made every drug avalible the system would crumble, it is an expensive treatment and pharmaceuticals arent cheap (not going to blame the makers tho, its a high risk high reward area, drugs cost millions to make).

I dont quite agree with them denying her treatment at all if she uses it tho, but i dare say, its liability, its not yet approved for use over here. Just because a drug may be approved in other countries, means nothing.

Matt_W · #3 01-31-2008, 06:34 AM

"...In this briefing, the agency says that the drug [Avastin] did appear to slow the progression of the disease in these women (the primary goal of the study), but it didn’t appear to improve overall survival. What’s more, 1.7% of women in the study who received chemotherapy plus Avastin died as a result of drug-related complications, compared with none of the women who received chemotherapy alone...

...But Genentech makes its case in favor of expanded use (here), and the company points out that many other breast cancer drugs have been approved based on progression-free survival. The document also notes that the study did suggest that Avastin improved overall survival, though the results did not meet the standard scientific test of significance..."

The reason the NHS refuses to pay for Avastin, is that it is not worth it's huge costs for minimal improvement. This woman would be very misguided to sell her house for something that would most likley not help her.

Diggler · #4 01-31-2008, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt_W

The reason the NHS refuses to pay for Avastin, is that it is not worth it's huge costs for minimal improvement. This woman would be very misguided to sell her house for something that would most likley not help her.

YOU tell that to someone who has weeks to live.

She'll be dead, but at least she'll have her house!

i_got_a_mohawk · #5 01-31-2008, 06:41 AM

She'll be dead either way, but maybe if she has kids, she might want to leave them something?

Diggler · #6 01-31-2008, 06:43 AM

It's her house, her money! Who are they to say that she can't give this treatment a try by paying out of her own pocket??

All validated under the "I hope you brought enough chewing gum for the rest of the class" mentality.

Matt_W · #7 01-31-2008, 06:49 AM

The NHS is within it's rights, and I agree with it's reasoning behind not letting her pay for a "better" service, that is against the very core of what the NHS is meant to stand for. If they did let her pay for it, it would seem to say that they think the drug works, but it is too expensive to use on most people, which just isn't the case. The drug is ineffectual.

i_got_a_mohawk · #8 01-31-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diggler

It's her house, her money! Who are they to say that she can't give this treatment a try by paying out of her own pocket??

All validated under the "I hope you brought enough chewing gum for the rest of the class" mentality.

She would be better buying a whole load of cocaine or heroin if she was to sell her house

In the US can you go in and demand any drug you want, validated only by what someone told you without any consultants agreement?

Mark Latimour · #9 01-31-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diggler

This woman has breast cancer and wants to buy Avastin, which halts tumors but is not yet approved in the NHS.

So she put her house up for sale to pay for it and possibly save her life, but the Department of Health said that if she buys this life-saving drug on her own (since NHS won't), she will have to pay for ALL her treatment.

Socialism is the ultimate in fairness. It makes everyone equally miserable.

I Have Been Denied Vital Cancer Drug

I assume that all drugs are approved by the FDA without hesitation or thought.

Mark Latimour · #10 01-31-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diggler

It's her house, her money! Who are they to say that she can't give this treatment a try by paying out of her own pocket??

All validated under the "I hope you brought enough chewing gum for the rest of the class" mentality.

So you can import any drug you want into the US and use it without FDA approval? And, if you did, what that affect what your health insurance would pay for?

morf · #11 01-31-2008, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diggler

It's her house, her money! Who are they to say that she can't give this treatment a try by paying out of her own pocket??

All validated under the "I hope you brought enough chewing gum for the rest of the class" mentality.

She can. But they won't pay for other treatments if she decides to illegally take care of it herself using a drug that hasn't been accepted, and it seems, doesn't actually work that well.

I think it's a very good decision.

Diggler · #12 01-31-2008, 06:58 AM

You have the option to go the experimental route with not-yet-approved drugs. This drug doesn't cure, but can extend the life. And you can pay for treatment outside of what your health care covers without the health care company dropping you completely.

The article also says that Avastin is licensed, but is not available from NHS.

Mark Latimour · #13 01-31-2008, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diggler

You have the option to go the experimental route with not-yet-approved drugs. This drug doesn't cure, but can extend the life. And you can pay for treatment outside of what your health care covers without the health care company dropping you completely.

The article also says that Avastin is licensed, but is not available from NHS.

That would potentially be the case if she had private health cover in the UK. Seems nothing particuarly unreasonable in the decision the NHS makes, it applies to everyone - I can't use a combination of my private cover and the NHS, I either use one or the other.

I wonder if she would be better off in the UK with this "scandal" without having any insurance than she would be in the US and not having any insurance. Would she get Avastin then?

Diggler · #14 01-31-2008, 07:10 AM

Avastin is approved in the US, so actually she could have insurance here, and have Avastin. And if it wasn't on her insurance approved list, she could pay for that drug out of pocket.

Mark Latimour · #15 01-31-2008, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diggler

Avastin is approved in the US, so actually she could have insurance here, and have Avastin. And if it wasn't on her insurance approved list, she could pay for that drug out of pocket.

How is that different from the UK? She can pay for the drug out of pocket here too.

Wouldn't it be a matter of fact as to whether it was on her insurance approved list? She certainly couldnt get onto a new insurance after being diagnosed with Breast Cancer. Its clear she doesn't have insurance already. So, again, assuming her current situation (no insurance), how would she be better off in the "scandal free" "capitalist" system operated in the US?

Also, its worth correcting, although Avastin is licensed in the UK, it is not licensed for the treatment of breast cancer. Only colon and I believe some lung cancers. So saying its licensed is misleading insofar as it relates to breast cancer.

Diggler · #16 01-31-2008, 07:28 AM

The difference is that she could continue getting her regular treatments paid for with her health care and still buy the drug out of her own pocket without having to pay for everthing else, from doctor visits to chemotherapy to hospital rooms.

This is what I have problems with:
"You either go all NHS and its free, or you go all private and you pay for everything."

OK, so why can't I pay for a legal product out of my own pocket without jeopardizing the rest of my health care? Answer to follow:

A Department of Health spokesman said: "If those who can afford it start "topping up" their care it will create a two tier NHS. What about those who can't afford Avastin?"

This is the big problem. If someone wants to pay for it outside of the system, it should be a non-issue.

Mark Latimour · #17 01-31-2008, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diggler

The difference is that she could continue getting her regular treatments paid for with her health care and still buy the drug out of her own pocket without having to pay for everthing else, from doctor visits to chemotherapy to hospital rooms.

This is what I have problems with:
"You either go all NHS and its free, or you go all private and you pay for everything."

OK, so why can't I pay for a legal product out of my own pocket without jeopardizing the rest of my health care? Answer to follow:

A Department of Health spokesman said: "If those who can afford it start "topping up" their care it will create a two tier NHS. What about those who can't afford Avastin?"

This is the big problem. If someone wants to pay for it outside of the system, it should be a non-issue.

Your statement is oversimplified, you are talking about a treatment that is not approved for her medical condition in the UK. It could potentially be adverse. They are saying that if she wants to go off the approved course of treatment, she must pay for the rest of her treatment. It doesn't mean she won't get free treatment for other conditions from the NHS (such as GP appointments etc), its just in relation to her breast cancer treatment. Here's an example for you to think over:

If I want to go to mexico and get plastic surgery on my face on my own diime. If they do a botched job, do you think that the NHS or your own private health insurance provider should then have to pick up the bill for the treatments to rectify the the ongoing problems caused by the operation I paid for?

Tegzsa · #18 01-31-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

If I want to go to mexico and get plastic surgery on my face on my own diime. If they do a botched job, do you think that the NHS or your own private health insurance provider should then have to pick up the bill for the treatments to rectify the the ongoing problems caused by the operation I paid for?

If the problems were life threatening, the NHS would take you on. However, the example should probably read: Do you think the NHS would pay for you to go to an unlicenced surgeon in ... to get plastic surgery while still providing all other care?

In response to the OP. Yes, we know the NHS has its problems, and to be honest it was much better when it was more socialist and inclusive. The failings it has now have largely arisen from its descent into being run according to profit margins.

Bruce Lindfield · #19 01-31-2008, 07:58 AM

Yup I agree if the UK was more 'socialist' - say like Sweden or maybe even France - it would be better - but there are always going to be limits on how much money you can spend - wheoever's money it is!

Hardly a scandal....?

Techmonkey · #20 01-31-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Yup I agree if the UK was more 'socialist' - say like Sweden or maybe even France - it would be better - but there are always going to be limits on how much money you can spend - wheoever's money it is!

Hardly a scandal....?

indeed.

it's a crying shame that this has happened, bless the poor woman, she doesn't need the stress, and I can only wish hope and pray that she lives a happy life.

But rules are rules, and they're justified, logical, and efficient.