Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Are some medical treatments too expensive to justify?

  • 04-05-2012 08:49AM
    #1
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭


    There's a new cancer drug costing 85,000 per patient being approved. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0504/1224315592242.html It doesn't cure the disease apparently, but does offer some help. There's also cases of people being sent to other countries to avail of expensive treatments not available here and the HSE funding it. Is 85,000 for treatment for one person too expensive? Or is life something for which money shouldn't be a factor?


«134

Comments

  • #2
    bellylint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 230 ✭✭bellylint


    It's a horror to turn around and say, we just cant afford to offer you a potential cure, and a least a length to your life. Though on a practical level, limited resources mean you cant practically do everything. I would rather see the resources for cost of the 100 odd people who receive this treatment, instead go to buy guardasil to start up the cervical smear vaccination programme.


  • #3
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Ideally, no. Realistically, yes - the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere else and it's likely several people will die as a result of saving one. I wouldn't like to be the one trying to explain that to a dying patient though.


  • #4
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    The sad thing is that there is no possible way it should cost anywhere near €85,000.


  • #5
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    I have an opinion on whether or not it's justifiable, but I'd feel bad if I expressed it.

    Take from that what you will.


  • #6
    CardBordWindow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,209 ✭✭✭CardBordWindow


    The Research and Development involved to create these drugs probably cost a lot, but the manufacture and distribution costs are probably very low.
    The only winners from charging 85,000 are the pharmaceutical companies, the majority of which operate tax-free!


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    85,000 euro for something that doesn't do the job?

    excuse my french but...

    THE FÚCK!? :confused:


  • #8
    Winston Payne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭Winston Payne


    Seachmall wrote: »
    I have an opinion on whether or not it's justifiable, but I'd feel bad if I expressed it.

    Take from that what you will.


    It's After Hours, live a little.


  • #9
    Penny Dreadful
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Penny Dreadful


    CardBordWindow wrote: »
    The Research and Development involved to create these drugs probably cost a lot, but the manufacture and distribution costs are probably very low.
    The only winners from charging 85,000 are the pharmaceutical companies, the majority of which operate tax-free!

    The R&D costs a whole lot of money. The drugs are in trials for approx 7 years before they are widely available and these trials involve a lot of time, staff, resources, equipment, all money whatever way you look at it.
    Right now the drugs cost that much but once its widely available other generic versions of the drug will become available at a cheaper price and so in time it will cost less.
    The companies are there to make a profit ultimately.


  • #10
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Penny Dreadful wrote: »
    The R&D costs a whole lot of money. The drugs are in trials for approx 7 years before they are widely available and these trials involve a lot of time, staff, resources, equipment, all money whatever way you look at it.
    Right now the drugs cost that much but once its widely available other generic versions of the drug will become available at a cheaper price and so in time it will cost less.
    The companies are there to make a profit ultimately.
    Indeed. Why would any drug research happen at all if there was no profit motive?

    Here's a list of all successful state drug companies:

    End of list.


  • #11
    Jezek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Jezek


    eer..sorry to poop on your AH party, but they negotiated the price and markedly brought it down. So no, it's not 85 000.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    lazygal wrote: »
    There's a new cancer drug costing 85,000 per patient being approved..... Is 85,000 for treatment for one person too expensive? Or is life something for which money shouldn't be a factor?

    If it doesn't solve the problem and only gives patients a couple of more months, I'd say it isn't worth it, except maybe in exceptional cases eg. keeping a pregnant woman alive long enough to give birth.

    If it had a chance of curing the cancer, that would be a different story.
    But there's no claims that it's anything other than a glorified treatment for the symptoms but not the condition.

    Also a factor in this should be the patients age, where old people near the end of their expected lifespan shouldn't expect expensive treatments.


  • #13
    wilkie2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    Penny Dreadful wrote: »
    The R&D costs a whole lot of money. The drugs are in trials for approx 7 years before they are widely available and these trials involve a lot of time, staff, resources, equipment, all money whatever way you look at it.
    Right now the drugs cost that much but once its widely available other generic versions of the drug will become available at a cheaper price and so in time it will cost less.
    The companies are there to make a profit ultimately.

    Basically correct. Clinical trials actually last between 10-15 years (in the UK anyway). The pharma companies only have a 20 year patent on any drug before competitors can produce generic versions. Therefore, they need to recoup their costs quickly (and these costs can be fantastic... a colleague once told me that only 1 in 20,000 drugs actually makes it to market).

    Some interesting stuff about drug licensing: http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/how-are-drugs-licensed-in-the-uk#mhra

    and clinical trials etc...
    http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-new-drug-to-go-through-clinical-trials
    The phases of clinical trials

    There are 3 main phases of clinical trials. All new drugs have to go through the phases before they can be licensed and prescribed for patients
    • Phase 1 trials recruit a small number of patients (up to about 30) to try to find out about drug side effects and the best dose to give
    • Phase 2 trials recruit more patients (up to about 50) and look at the effect the drug has on different types of cancer
    • Phase 3 trials are much bigger (100s or even 1000s of patients), and compare new treatments to the standard treatments to see which is better
    Although many drugs or products start life in phase 1 trials, they don’t all get as far as phase 3 trials and the licensing process.
    There are also phase 4 trials. These are carried out after a drug has a license. They aim to find out more about the longer term risks and benefits. And they also want to find out how well the drug works when it is used more widely. There is information about the drug licensing process in our section of questions and answers – choose treatment from the dropdown menu. There is also information about phases of trials on CancerHelp UK.


  • #14
    mawk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭mawk


    yeah, at the moment the cost to get a treatment from idea to market is 750 million euro. and that is increasing fast, the companies NEED to charge a lot to recoup losses. if they don't, they go under and then there is no new medicine and everything stagnates.


  • #15
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    We all know they found the cure for cancer a few years ago but that they can make more monies selling you the treatment.

    If they cured you how would they make their monies.



    watched a very cool doc a while ago in relation to cancer.
    Basically all the chemicals they spray on food, additives, mobile phone radiation / masts is where cancer comes from.

    rewind to 100 years ago when this technology did not exist and cancer also did not exist.


  • #16
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    We all know they found the cure for cancer a few years ago but that they can make more monies selling you the treatment.

    If they cured you how would they make their monies.



    watched a very cool doc a while ago in relation to cancer.
    Basically all the chemicals they spray on food, additives, mobile phone radiation / masts is where cancer comes from.

    rewind to 100 years ago when this technology did not exist and cancer also did not exist.
    There aren't enough rolleyes in the world

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#History

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #17
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    28064212 wrote: »
    There aren't enough rolleyes in the world

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer#History

    Facts schmacts.


  • #18
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    We all know they found the cure for cancer a few years ago

    Yea, with the hundreds of types of cancer there is, they found 1 cure to cure them all.

    Your trolling is getting worse.


  • #19
    Clareman
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 24,074 Mod ✭✭✭✭Clareman


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    rewind to 100 years ago when this technology did not exist and cancer also did not exist.

    Rewind to a time with an average life expectancy of 49.3 for women and compare it to now with an average life expectancy of 82.6.

    Give me some of that wonderful technology people it's killing us slower than not having, the b@stards


  • #20
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Not commenting on any particular drug or treatment.

    The discussion (heard it this morning on the radio) goes along the lines of "so you're going to refuse people potentially lifesaving treatment because of money?"

    The thing that people sometimes miss is that its not money for money's sake. If Patient A can't have a €100,000 treatment then 100 Patients might get say a colonoscopy to diagnose a potential problem.

    In fairness, a bigger issue arises when Patient A can't get a treatment but 100 HSE staff get new desks and chairs (for EXAMPLE).


  • #21
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    smash wrote: »
    Yea, with the hundreds of types of cancer there is, they found 1 cure to cure them all.

    Your trolling is getting worse.

    All my posts are Fact





    F.A.C.T


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    All my posts are Fact





    F.A.C.T

    I think you've misspelled F.A.C.T in this context, it's actually spelled T.O.T.AL. B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.


  • #23
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    I'll have to refer you to this post :

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78499068&posted=1#post78499068

    please send me your address....


  • #24
    mconigol
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    Stiffler2 wrote: »
    All my posts are Fact





    F.A.C.T

    Cancer isn't one specific disease. Run along now and stop talking nonsense like a good lad.


  • #25
    wilkie2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    I Heart Internet wrote: »

    In fairness, a bigger issue arises when Patient A can't get a treatment but 100 HSE staff get new desks and chairs (for EXAMPLE).

    Yea, but that type of argument (and I understand you're only using it hypothetically) is usually just sensationalist, tabloid rubbish that ignores the bigger picture.

    In an instance where that argument is cited, there may be two facts:

    1. patient refused treatment
    2. HSE staff get new office equipment

    However, there's no correlation between the two; funding for 1 and 2 were to come from different purses anyway.

    FYI - in the UK - the MHRA decides what drugs should receive a license (based on safety and efficacy) but NICE decide whether these licenced drugs represent value (based on financial considerations) and if they should be available to NHS patients. The Dept of Health has nothing to do with it. If the drugs/treatments are licenced (by MHRA) and sanctioned for NHS use (by NICE) then they can be prescribed.


  • #26
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,589 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Penny Dreadful wrote: »
    The R&D costs a whole lot of money.
    It's nearly half what they spend on marketing

    And the main customer is the health sector and technically speaking the main selling point should be peer reviewed results so drugs should cost an awful lot less.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/07/r-d-v-marketing-where-should-drug-companies-spend/20846/
    Looking over the past thirty years of drug company annual reports (and stock prices), they find that the "sales, general, and administrative" category went up slightly (as a per cent of total sales) in the 1975-2006 period, from 32% to 39%. Interestingly, manufacturing and general cost-of-goods was the leading expenditure in 1975 (43%), but this has gone down pretty steadily to about 23%. And even more interestingly, the percent spent on R&D has more than tripled over the same period, from 5% to 17%


  • #27
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,067 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    Does the OP's question relate to medical treatments the HSE pays for, or treatments in general?
    If I had cancer and there was some (good) treatment which cost 85k, I would come up with the money and have the treatment. As such, I would feel that the treatment should be made available.
    If the HSE were to pay for it, however, health insurance costs would go through the roof, and just think of the complaints we would have about medical card holders and dole scroungers then...


  • #28
    trishasaffron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 922 ✭✭✭trishasaffron


    OP - I think the basic question here is of huge significance and we are very ill equipped to deal with it as a society. If any particular sad story makes the headlines - through good marketing or whatever - the public response is "send to child on the government jet to have their ... ......... at any cost" "keep the 98 year old woman alive" and no debate is possible on the opportunity cost of doing so. e.g. if you do that then stroke patients will have to wait 2 more hours on trolleys or whatever. No decision to apply funds in a healthcare area is without negative consequences in another area - it is and always will be about choices. Budgets will always have limitations.

    Its like we are a childish society only concerned with "what I want now" and no sense of taking responsibility for the choices we must make. Or at least the choices are made by default instead of explicitly because we're too scared or inadequate to do the thinking.

    We need to grow up.


  • #29
    Coffeeteasugar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭Coffeeteasugar


    No,and why should a justification be relevant at all. If it's alleviating the individual's illness, all resources should be invested.


  • #30
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    If it doesn't solve the problem and only gives patients a couple of more months, I'd say it isn't worth it, except maybe in exceptional cases eg. keeping a pregnant woman alive long enough to give birth.

    If it had a chance of curing the cancer, that would be a different story.
    But there's no claims that it's anything other than a glorified treatment for the symptoms but not the condition.

    Also a factor in this should be the patients age, where old people near the end of their expected lifespan shouldn't expect expensive treatments.[/QUOTE]


    Easy to say. How would you feel if you were told you had weeks to live? Or someone you were close to? Believeme, in that instance you would gladly beg, borrow or steal for a couple of more months, regardless of age.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    It's nearly half what they spend on marketing

    And the main customer is the health sector and technically speaking the main selling point should be peer reviewed results so drugs should cost an awful lot less.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/07/r-d-v-marketing-where-should-drug-companies-spend/20846/
    "Sales, administrative and general" is NOT EQUAL to "marketing". It's the whole ****ing business aside from R&D and manufacturing. Some of Stifler's facepalms belong to you.


Advertisement
Advertisement