Cancer Patients Not Told of New Treatments
A cancer charity has today published research that shows doctors are keeping cancer patients in the dark about new treatments that could extend their lives.
Myeloma UK, which conducted the research, said a quarter of myeloma specialists questioned in a survey admitted hiding the facts about treatments that may be difficult to obtain on the NHS.
The main reason given was to avoid distressing or confusing patients.
Myeloma is a bone marrow cancer that affects around 3,800 people each year in the UK. Of these, 2,600 are likely to die from the disease.
More. Now I know what you’re thinking. They have universal health care in the UK, so how could it be that these treatments “may be difficult to obtain”?
In this case, the culprit seems to be the Orwellianly named N.I.C.E. (National Institution for health and Clinical Excellence):
Dr Atul Mehta, a haematologist consultant at the Royal Free Hospital, London, said: “These survey findings reveal the dismal state of UK cancer management. Despite significant advances in the treatment of myeloma, such as Revlimid, the majority of patients cannot get access to new life-extending drugs until they have been appraised and approved by Nice – a process that can take up to three years from when the drug is first licensed in the UK.
Since I’ve been accused in the past of focusing only on the problems with other countries health care systems, I’ll add that the U.S. system is hardly perfect in this regard. Under the FDA, new drugs are kept off the market, sometimes for years, out of safety concerns even though not having the drug can be the difference between life and death for many patients. In the words of one economist: “[T]he benefits of FDA regulation relative to that in foreign countries could reasonably be put at some 5,000 casualties [not lives] per decade or 10,000 per decade for worst-case scenarios. In comparison, it has been argued above that the cost of FDA delay can be estimated at anywhere from 21,000 to 120,000 lives per decade.” Whether adding our own Nice on top of the FDA and other existing regulations would improve matters is, of course, another question.
(HT: Coyote Blog)
Comments are closed.
Too often socialized Medicine means that alternative forms of treatment are criminalized.
Of course we could always go the Oregonian route and propose “terminal sedation” as an alternative treatment for cancer.
The FDA should approve drugs and perform its other duties more quickly without any compromise of quality. And the fault for the status quo can be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration. They tried to close half of the FDA field laboratories as a cost cutting measure (Teddy Kennedy and John Dingell stopped them from doing so). They have understaffed the agency, reducing the number of scientists, chemists and inspectors while giving huge boneses to top bureucrats favored by the Bush Administration. Tomato, pet food, spinich all have been serious issues recently while Bush, McCain and the Republicans fiddle.
To be fair, Dr. von Eisenbach has been pressured to be a good boy within the Adminsitration and recently has found his manhood to say that in his “scientific opinion” FDA is woefully understaffed for its critical mission.
One of the treatments discussed typically extended life by three years. Looking into that particular druge, Revlimid, we find:
It should be noted that Revlimid is currently under investigation by the FDA for potential cause of serious risk.
BA -so, according to the right wing, the problem in the UK is that they have single-payer healthcare (which is socialism and thus tyranny… or something), and the problem in the US is that the FDA is too strict about keeping drug companies from poisoning us.
Something tells me your idea of utopia is some place I’d really hate to live.
Matt,
I would ask you to think about the matter rationally, rather than simply responding in a visceral way. When the FDA keeps a new drug off the market there is a potential benefit (in that the drug may have harmful side effects) and a potential cost (in that sick people will not have access to the drug, and may die as a result). Whether these benefits outweigh these costs is not a question that can be answered a priori. One has to look at the facts. And from what I can tell, both based on the American experience and the example of other countries, the fact is that more people are sick and die under the current FDA regime than would do so if there was less regulation.
Tomato, pet food, spinich all have been serious issues recently while Bush, McCain and the Republicans fiddle.
On the subject of foodborne disease outbreaks, I would direct your attention to this post.
ba,
This data seems to contradict what I have been seeing lately. Are the outbreaks we are seeing these days larger in scope, and that is why there is more attention focused on them? Or has the gutting of the FDA in the past decade (yes, I believe it started before Mr. Bush) just caused the MSM to be more focused on food safety? One thing is for sure, no sense laying blame on a party level for the current state of the FDA, it’s been a joint effort.
…the fact is that more people are sick and die under the current FDA regime than would do so if there was less regulation.
Jeremy’s response it right on target. BA limits our options to the private market (ah, yes, the good old days before the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed by those pesky liberals. Bring back “The Jungle”) or the Bush Administration (and McCain supported) weakening of the FDA.
How about a President who stands up to Big Pharma? How about one that agrees with Sam Brownback that the FDA should not be gutted by closing half of its field laboratories? What about a change from the current leadership?
Jeremy,
I wouldn’t assume that an increase in news coverage about a particular problem equals an increase in the problem.
Kurt,
We aren’t talking about a return to “The Jungle” here. Many European countries aren’t as strict about keeping new drugs off the market as is the U.S. Is Europe living in “The Jungle”? I don’t think so ((the Pure Food and Drug Act was a labeling law passed by a Republican congress and signed by a Republican president, by the way),
Can I just add a comment here from the UK! All our political class here are so totally enamoured of the US that the US model for a given area of policy can be affected by the US example subconsciously, even if the US model is publicly repudiated.
The decisions of NICE are based on that eminently capitalist criterion: WHAT IS EFFICIENT AND AFFORDABLE WITHIN CURRENT BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS? And hence the surrent spate of decisions. Meanwhile the UK government prepares, in full sight of the world,and it’s generally apathetic Catholic electorate, to renew our “independent” nuclear deterrent, at a cost of around £25 billion. The immediate and unconditional scrapping of this inexcusably blasphemous and ineradicably evil programme would immediately free up a plethora of funds to plug the various holes in anumber of key Uk government budgets concerned with such trivial issues as helping the destitute!
Once again, for the benefit of possibly irretrevably ideologically brainwashed US listeners, the issue is not “big” versus “small” government, but rather how the money raised by government is spent. Is it to be spent on destruction, or construction?
“The time has come for the destruction of the destroyers of the earth.”
“Amen! Alleluia! Maranantha Kyrios Jesus!”