[Lymphoma Cancer] Profit before People?

the_syco

Hey mods, not sure where this would be suited, please move if it's not here.

http://www.ibtimes.com/when-drug-companies-are-hazardous-your-health-lifesaving-cancer-drug-bexxar-discontinued-1551568

These are the final days for Bexxar, a lifesaving cancer treatment that drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE:GSK) announced last summer would be discontinued on Feb. 20 because it wasn’t earning the company enough money. That harsh reality has begun to sink in for those who adamantly oppose GSK’s decision to scrap this effective, safe, FDA-approved therapy for lymphoma, the nation’s seventh most common cancer for men and women.

Came across this article earlier, and thought it was an interesting read. It is seemingly an effective treatment for a common cancer (lymphoma), but it being cancelled due to lack of profit.

Now, in the long term, I can see such an event happening more often as massive loss of profit would happen as less people would take the treatment if there is a cure.

Going forward, should the governments subsidise the companies lack of profit? I acknowledge that in this case, it was lack of a take-up, as it needed to be "administered by a doctor who is licensed in nuclear medicine or radiation oncology", and thus put off a few doctors, but if it's so effective shouldn't governments have an obligation to subsidise such life-saving medicine?

Kurtosis

the_syco wrote: »

Going forward, should the governments subsidise the companies lack of profit? I acknowledge that in this case, it was lack of a take-up, as it needed to be "administered by a doctor who is licensed in nuclear medicine or radiation oncology", and thus put off a few doctors, but if it's so effective shouldn't governments have an obligation to subsidise such life-saving medicine?

A system like this does exist with orphan drugs programs, where pharmaceutical companies are incentivised to develop treatments for rare diseases which would not otherwise be profitable. The incentives offered can be financial or relating to the marketing/licensing of drugs.

I guess the issue is what can be designated as an orphan drug, especially after a drug has already been marketed and is in use. If a drug that is the most cost-effective treatment available is in danger of being withdrawn from the market due to it being unprofitable, then I do think governments should review their reimbursement price. Of course this could be open to abuse with pharmaceutical companies claiming a drug isn't profitable to try to get a better price for it. It would be a fine balancing act to establish a system that ensures patients continue to get access to cost-effective treatment without costs spiraling.

the_syco

penguin88 wrote: »

It would be a fine balancing act to establish a system that ensures patients continue to get access to cost-effective treatment without costs spiraling.

The crap thing is that should someone else develop it, there's a chance that the new cure will be the same as the "current" one, and thus not able to be sold as it's patented?

Kurtosis

I'm not sure what you mean by cure here?

Once a drug is developed, a pharmaceutical company will patent it, which gives them exclusive rights to it for 20 years. The drug then goes through three phases of clinical trials after which the drug can be licensed, which normally leaves about 12-15 years of patent life with the drug on the market. After this time other companies can produce generic versions of the medicine containing the same drug.

echo beach

The article says the drug was approved in 2003 and there are comments from people who got it 17 years ago in clinical trials so it must be very close to the end of its patent life, which could be why GSK see no future for it but means that other companies could soon produce and market it.
Although it would be more complex than the usual process of producing a generic of a chemical compound there must be a small niche company who could do it, perhaps backed by a charity.

The idea that drug companies would put profits before people's lives could hardly come as a shock to anybody who knows a little about the development of AIDS drugs. Millions of people don't have access to even cheap life-saving drugs like antibiotics, much less high cost treatments like those for cancer.