Cancer Drugs

[enodreven]

Hi,

 

Just listening to a radio report on how it seems a young man with brain cancer is not sure if he will be allowed the possible ?wonder drug? which could possible extend his life, his family and friends are fund raising to try and purchase this drug if the NHS (NICE) decide not to fund it.

 

Apparently it costs something like £4000 for a week's or a fortnight's treatment, and I just wonder why we are allowing this sort of extortionate practice to continue ? unchallenged, while its easy to direct anger at the NHS, NICE the Government etc. why isn't the whole countries anger being directed at these drug companies, I have never heard of any watchdog or regulator looking at how these companies come about their charges, have you.

 

I know there is a strong suggestion that drugs cost millions to bring to market, but from what I can understand that statement is made by the drug companies themselves, and while they may be telling us the truth, I would like to see an independent enquiry to confirm this, the Government have set-up enquires into the price of Petrol, Gas, Electric, all private companies, but I haven't heard of one enquiry into the way these drug companies come about their prices, and I think its about time we did as I find £4000 per week or two to be quiet exceptional.

 

It would also be very interesting to find out just how much the same drugs are sold in different countries as I have a feeling the NHS may be getting ripped off,

 

Be interested in your thoughts.

[Guest peter]

You're probably correct in your assumption. It's a bloody disgrace.

I think it's very telling that the gang of four have been on here all day and not one has commented.

Perhaps it's too thought provoking for them. :D

[Guest pelmetman]

Being a radical thinker ;-)................My views would probably send the NHS into apoplexy :D...............As I would rather the NHS funds be spent on making people better..................rather than expensive art work for Chelmsford hospital..........or a yacht for ner do wells in Hull.............or paying for a recent local CEO to spend 10 of thousands on a NHS credit card visiting sunny climes doing research *-) ............

 

The NHS needs to tend genuine sick people............not cure their social ill's..............that's societies job :-|..............although they've been neutered by the PC brigade *-)..................

 

I see the EU is trying to make obesity an illness :-S............?

 

BTW its not my fault I'm an annoying ar*ehole..............its yours :D....................who can I sue? >:-)

 

 

[Tracker]

Following Peter's succinct and cutting edge posting the reason I have not commented is because, like him and most of us, I don't know enough about it to comment fairly without guessing.

 

I do know one thing though, in this life things are rarely what they seem and no doubt there are two sides to this story.

 

Not that I would like anyone to take that as condoning what I too see as inept government and greedy multi national companies, many of whom seem to be foreign based?

 

NHS funding is unfortunately not a bottomless pit and the cold hard fact is the view has to be taken at some point about whether the ongoing exceptional costs of one persons care could be detrimental to many others who might have benefited from that investment.

 

Perhaps it is time for the government, perhaps with lottery support, to set up an exceptional case fund so that exceptionally high treatment costs can be met without jeopardising anyone else's treatment - if indeed these expensive one off cases do jeopardise anyone else's treatment and that is not just an NHS smoke screen. I wish I knew?

 

Perhaps someone really in the know can present an unbiased view before the mass lynchings take place?

[spospe]

My wife used to work in the labs at AstraZeneca and according to her:

 

1) The cost of developing and testing a new drug is very high and often drugs do not make it to the market, so no return at al in many cases.

 

2) When a drug is successful and is available, the costs have to be recovered over many years before the patent / licence runs out.

 

3) Where a drug has a mass market (e.g. Viagra) the costs are easily recovered and the cost of the drug is lowered as a result.

 

4) Where a drug has limited use and not many patients need it, it is correspondingly expensive.

 

OK?

[Tracker]

Sounds reasonable to me Michael - but can we really believe what the the drug companies PR machines say?

 

I imagine that most people's response would be to say 'well they would say that wouldn't they!'

 

I still have an open mind!

 

Fiat might claim that their vehicles, customer care and dealerships are all top quality with customer satisfaction their prime concern?

[malc d]

spospe - 2014-08-08 7:52 PM

 

My wife used to work in the labs at AstraZeneca and according to her:

 

1) The cost of developing and testing a new drug is very high and often drugs do not make it to the market, so no return at al in many cases.

 

2) When a drug is successful and is available, the costs have to be recovered over many years before the patent / licence runs out.

 

3) Where a drug has a mass market (e.g. Viagra) the costs are easily recovered and the cost of the drug is lowered as a result.

 

4) Where a drug has limited use and not many patients need it, it is correspondingly expensive.

 

OK?

 

 

I've seen a couple of interviews on TV today with Roche PR people.

 

When reminded of the excellent overall profits they are making, and the level of dividends they are paying out - and being asked why they cannot just reduce the price, their answer was :

 

" Other countries pay our prices, so why can't the UK ".

 

That would seem to sum up there attitude very well.

 

 

:-(