Life saving drug too expensive

poppyvally

For certain types of melanoma (skin cancer) there is a new "wonder drug" which actually eliminates this type of cancer. But ...sorry! you can't have it unless you can affford it. Die!..... Sunny Jim dosent care, because we've got to get the books in order!!. Money for special advisers, bonuses to various high earners, but YOU! if you are afflicted with this type of cancer.. F'off & die!! I am not afflicted with this, but my blood is boiling. I am definitley voting ....NO!

Bipolar Joe

poppyvally wrote: »

For certain types of melanoma (skin cancer) there is a new "wonder drug" which actually eliminates this type of cancer. But ...sorry! you can't have it unless you can affford it. Die!..... Sunny Jim dosent care, because we've got to get the books in order!!. Money for special advisers, bonuses to various high earners, but YOU! if you are afflicted with this type of cancer.. F'off & die!! I am not afflicted with this, but my blood is boiling. I am definitley voting ....NO!

Was that on purpose?

IsaacWunder

Do you have a source?

mackg

Vote no to skin cancer!

shopaholic01

Use sunscreen :cool:

The King of Moo

Is this just that e-mail that's been forwarded for seemingly the last twenty years with an absurd claim that's been roundly discredited?

You could at least post a link.

Also, Sunny Jim has always been a d*ck, but his sister Sunny Dee is lovely.

Corkfeen

I really hate the idea of linking to Joe Duffy but I heard that it was discussed on it.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/ - Under drug for cancer....

im invisible

poppyvally wrote: »

but my blood is boiling.

you should see someone about that

I am definitley voting ....NO!

on what exactly???

ted1

New drugs cost hundreds of million to develop, they need yo make their money back. What are you voting no on?

jimmycrackcorm

poppyvally wrote: »

For certain types of melanoma (skin cancer) there is a new "wonder drug" which actually eliminates this type of cancer. But ...sorry! you can't have it unless you can affford it. Die!..... Sunny Jim dosent care, because we've got to get the books in order!!. Money for special advisers, bonuses to various high earners, but YOU! if you are afflicted with this type of cancer.. F'off & die!! I am not afflicted with this, but my blood is boiling. I am definitley voting ....NO!

Why not just start a whiparound amongst your fellow whingers...

IsaacWunder

Is this the drug?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipilimumab

vicwatson

Drug in short is known as Ippy - proper name Ipilimumab.

Costs 85,000.00 per patient, Bristol Meyers Squibb are the manufacturers.

Hande hoche!

A considerable number of drug patents including viagra are expiring over the next few years. Plus patents act as an incentive for development of new drugs.

My name is URL

It's a sad state of affairs but it's the way the world works. If pharmaceutical companies don't pump billions of dollars into research and development, then who will?

xflyer

Welcome to the real world. Welcome to the real world where money talks. Welcome to the real world where you find your child has a problem but it's a two year wait for treatment. But when you have money to pay for it, it's a case of 'Will next Monday, do for you sir?'

That's life!

Welcome to my world.

shopaholic01

OP, the Limerick Leader may be interested in your plight

byhookorbycrook

There's an oral MS treatment held up in the same way. I know a girl who had to travel to Dublin as there is no neurologist in her area. As she is not within the defined catchment area of the Dublin hospital she cannot get the drug she needs,but there is no-one in her catchment area that can treat her with the drug. Meanwhile she is in and out of hospital with relapses, essentially costing far more than the cost of the drug if she could get it.

I don't see why Viagra gets paid for and this doesn't.

IsaacWunder

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

I don't see why Viagra gets paid for and this doesn't.

Maybe it's cheaper than antidepressants?

opinion guy

IsaacWunder wrote: »

Maybe it's cheaper than antidepressants?

Maybe treating someone for MS is cheaper than letting it progress even if the drug is expensive ?

themadchef

vicwatson wrote: »

Drug in short is known as Ippy - proper name Ipilimumab.

Costs 85,000.00 per patient, Bristol Meyers Squibb are the manufacturers.

Hande hoche! wrote: »

A considerable number of drug patents including viagra are expiring over the next few years. Plus patents act as an incentive for development of new drugs.

The drug cost €85,0000, sure.

Can anyone me the cost of a human life?

Say my brothers life? Or your mother, if she had this cancer... what would that be worth to you?

Thing is, it may not even work. This is the last chance saloon for these people. No more treatment............. Hell of a situation to be in for all families involved and i fell sorry for them because our fúcking government has no problem shoveling money out for advisors on this, that and the other, groups, schemes, and all sorts of crapology. When it comes tothe people, actual people of this country (and from what i heard in the radio there are 200 suffering with this condition who would possible be eligble for treatment) they really couldint care less.

People dying dont have the time to wait for patents to run out, or govenments to make up their minds. They dont have options or choices, or hope, but today they had Joe fúcking Duffy, and i hate Joe

Yes we are broke, but, surely to fúck we should be able to put a few €€ on the table for the dying? Why cant we negotiate with these companies? Where is our Michael o Leary!!!!

fearcruach

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

There's an oral MS treatment held up in the same way. I know a girl who had to travel to Dublin as there is no neurologist in her area. As she is not within the defined catchment area of the Dublin hospital she cannot get the drug she needs,but there is no-one in her catchment area that can treat her with the drug. Meanwhile she is in and out of hospital with relapses, essentially costing far more than the cost of the drug if she could get it.

I don't see why Viagra gets paid for and this doesn't.

Erectile dysfunction is a very real and distressing illness. No reason why Viagra wouldn't be paid for. Only four tabs a month are covered as well.

Chuck Stone

vicwatson wrote: »

Drug in short is known as Ippy - proper name Ipilimumab.

Costs 85,000.00 per patient, Bristol Meyers Squibb are the manufacturers.

Is that cost justified or is it taking advantage of a monopoly on production?

fearcruach

Chuck Stone wrote: »

vicwatson wrote: »

Drug in short is known as Ippy - proper name Ipilimumab.

Costs 85,000.00 per patient, Bristol Meyers Squibb are the manufacturers.

Is that cost justified or is it taking advantage of a monopoly on production?

What would be a justifiable cost? How do you define it? I would imagine if it is a rare enough disease then the cost needs to be high to cover the R and D of the drug which for a biological probably came in over a billion dollars

Chuck Stone

fearcruach wrote: »

What would be a justifiable cost? How do you define it?

I have no idea.

I would imagine if it is a rare enough disease then the cost needs to be high to cover the R and D of the drug which for a biological probably came in over a billion dollars

They will have a patent for 20 years (I think) so surely they could recoup multiple of the cost of R&D.

oppenheimer1

themadchef wrote: »

The drug cost €85,0000, sure.

Can anyone me the cost of a human life?

Say my brothers life? Or your mother, if she had this cancer... what would that be worth to you?

Thing is, it may not even work. This is the last chance saloon for these people. No more treatment............. Hell of a situation to be in for all families involved and i fell sorry for them because our fúcking government has no problem shoveling money out for advisors on this, that and the other, groups, schemes, and all sorts of crapology. When it comes tothe people, actual people of this country (and from what i heard in the radio there are 200 suffering with this condition who would possible be eligble for treatment) they really couldint care less.

People dying dont have the time to wait for patents to run out, or govenments to make up their minds. They dont have options or choices, or hope, but today they had Joe fúcking Duffy, and i hate Joe

Yes we are broke, but, surely to fúck we should be able to put a few €€ on the table for the dying? Why cant we negotiate with these companies? Where is our Michael o Leary!!!!

The cost of a human life has been well documented. For a young person to die early it costs society about €1.5m.

Sad and all as it is, these drugs are phenomenally and prohibitively expensive. As skin cancer is the most common cancer in Ireland, making this treatment available on the medical card would cost a fortune, in the tens of millions. Public health has always been about rationing scarce resources to make best use of them - and making priorities. €80,000 might save one life from skin cancer with this wonder drug, but it also might save 20 others suffering from a serious ailment that is less expensive to treat.

In a world and health systems of scarce resources, difficult choices often have to be made to achieve the greater good. Obviously this is difficult to hear for anyone suffering from cancer that could be treated by this drug, but there is no point in sugar coating the truth.

poppyvally

Corkfeen wrote: »

I really hate the idea of linking to Joe Duffy but I heard that it was discussed on it.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/ - Under drug for cancer....

Thank you Corkfeen I'm not good with the links. I suppose I should have known better than to put such a serious post into a moronic forum.

Have that cancer research crowd, well the many of them internationally, with their charity status ever done anything useful does anyone know?

eth0

My name is URL wrote: »

It's a sad state of affairs but it's the way the world works. If pharmaceutical companies don't pump billions of dollars into research and development, then who will?

The governments that are currently pumping billions into these companies in the hope that they might spend a bit on research while at the same time creaming off a nice profit for themselves. The Bristol Squib crowd behind this drug made 10bn in 2009

You'd be left to die so a fella slightly richer than you would be tempted to sell everything to pay for this drug only to die a year later from the disease anyway. A bit like the way if you couldn't pay your mortgage the bank would refuse to 'let you off' a part of it because if they did that then your neighbours would feel there's no incentive to pay their mortgage.

So you'd be put out on the street just so your neighbours can feel better about paying their mortgage. It is also the case that there isn't enough money in the system for everyone to pay all their debts. The system we have now relies on a steady supply of 'fall guys' to be put on the street, go bankrupt or be left die not only to motivate others into supporting the system but to actually keep it going at all.

The King of Moo

poppyvally wrote: »

Thank you Corkfeen I'm not good with the links. I suppose should have known better than to put such a serious post into a moronic forum.

Serious posts are fine, they just need to have some info for people to go on.

And just because I'm a moron, there's no need to tar all the good folk of this forum with the same brush!

Good day!

My name is URL

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

There's an oral MS treatment held up in the same way. I know a girl who had to travel to Dublin as there is no neurologist in her area. As she is not within the defined catchment area of the Dublin hospital she cannot get the drug she needs,but there is no-one in her catchment area that can treat her with the drug. Meanwhile she is in and out of hospital with relapses, essentially costing far more than the cost of the drug if she could get it.

I don't see why Viagra gets paid for and this doesn't.

How do you know it would cost more for her to receive older meds? If she was receiving the breakthrough treatment she'd still need to be kept under observation quite a bit more than she would for more conventional treatments. The cost of the drug being administered is only a small part of the overall cost. With newer treatments there needs to be more extensive checks and clinical observations.

That's why mainly only the more wealthy can avail of them early on. Over time, newly trialled stuff becomes cheaper and more widely available to the population as a whole. If people aren't willing to take risks and invest heavilly in new treatments then they'll never even make it out of the lab.

themadchef

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In a world and health systems of scarce resources, difficult choices often have to be made to achieve the greater good. Obviously this is difficult to hear for anyone suffering from cancer that could be treated by this drug, but there is no point in sugar coating the truth.

This is the spin that cracks me up.

Millions on parking spaces and someones kid dying because we as a country cant affords to pay for that kids cancer treatment?


Please....

Im sick of it.

eth0

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In a world and health systems of scarce resources, difficult choices often have to be made to achieve the greater good. Obviously this is difficult to hear for anyone suffering from cancer that could be treated by this drug, but there is no point in sugar coating the truth.

It wouldn't be so bad if the scarcity of the said resources wasn't purely artificial to help big business. Once production gets going most of this stuff takes feckall to make.

themadchef

themadchef wrote: »

The drug cost €85,0000, sure.

Can anyone me the cost of a human life?

Say my brothers life? Or your mother, if she had this cancer... what would that be worth to you?

Thing is, it may not even work. This is the last chance saloon for these people. No more treatment............. Hell of a situation to be in for all families involved and i fell sorry for them because our fúcking government has no problem shoveling money out for advisors on this, that and the other, groups, schemes, and all sorts of crapology. When it comes tothe people, actual people of this country (and from what i heard in the radio there are 200 suffering with this condition who would possible be eligble for treatment) they really couldint care less.

People dying dont have the time to wait for patents to run out, or govenments to make up their minds. They dont have options or choices, or hope, but today they had Joe fúcking Duffy, and i hate Joe

Yes we are broke, but, surely to fúck we should be able to put a few €€ on the table for the dying? Why cant we negotiate with these companies? Where is our Michael o Leary!!!!

This isn't really a life-saver, 3 studies were done and in one it didn't manage to shrink the tumour in even 10% of patients. It's a pretty slight life life extender on average with pretty nasty side-effects.

oppenheimer1

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have no idea.



They will have a patent for 20 years (I think) so surely they could recoup multiple of the cost of R&D.

They are not a charity, and pharma companies don't develop drugs for the greater good but to enhance their balance sheets. Not only does this drug have to cover the cost of its R&D but also the cost of drugs that failed. It also has to generate a profit for the pharma company.

Many of the easy wins in pharmaceuticals seem to have been achieved in terms of the development of drugs. Treatments are becoming ever more complex therefore this kind of thing (ie drugs not available on the medical card) will be a feature of the future.

oppenheimer1

themadchef wrote: »

This is the spin that cracks me up.

Millions on parking spaces and someones kid dying because we as a country cant affords to pay for that kids cancer treatment?


Please....

Im sick of it.

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.

eth0 wrote: »

It wouldn't be so bad if the scarcity of the said resources wasn't purely artificial to help big business. Once production gets going most of this stuff takes feckall to make.

The drug is not expensive due to its scarcity, but due to the enormous cost of developing such treatments. The reason the generic/out of patent drugs are so cheap is because those pharma companies only copy the "recipe". They don't have to pay for development - which is also risky, and doesn't pay off more often than not.

I just don't understand why no-one here starts a company to research and develop some drugs and take just a small profit off the top.

oppenheimer1

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.

We should all skip a meal a day so that experimental medication can be more freely available.

themadchef

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.

Yes i completly agree with you. It needs to take parking spaces, unvouched expenses, and needless blank cheque writing off the books though.

We need a slash and burn on all departments, someone ruthless who knows where the stupid money is going. No one has the balls though, everyone is too comfy.

\ Anyway, back to dying.

Jimoslimos

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that this seems like a sneaky underhand way for pharmaceutical companies to promote their drugs? UK/Ireland/Europe have tighter regs on advertising than the US (see antidepressants for dogs).

Generate publicity and have desperate patients hounding doctors for the latest 'wonder-drug'. After a few years, the actual true benefits can be seen with large scale meta-analysis of several studies, but at this stage the hype and or patent has disappeared to be replaced by another

Ipullimab actually seems like quite a dangerous drug with possible severe side-effects, looks to have a similar mode of action to the drug given in the notorious Phase 1 clinical trial in Northwick park, where all participants suffered severe organ failure.

eth0

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They are not a charity, and pharma companies don't develop drugs for the greater good but to enhance their balance sheets. Not only does this drug have to cover the cost of its R&D but also the cost of drugs that failed. It also has to generate a profit for the pharma company.

Many of the easy wins in pharmaceuticals seem to have been achieved in terms of the development of drugs. Treatments are becoming ever more complex therefore this kind of thing (ie drugs not available on the medical card) will be a feature of the future.

I have read a good few of your posts and I'm starting to think you're just a somewhat cunning troll.

Every single time there is a post about some new tax the government is to introduce you'll be out saying how great it is, if there's austerity you'll be saying how necessary it is and how it will get out of trouble. If the power that be or a big company is screwing over an ordinary man on the street you'll be taking the side of the company or the PTB.

If you aren't infact trolling or getting a kick out of playing devils advocate i'd love to know where you'd get these very right-wing yet pro-high taxation views from

Chuck Stone

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

pharma companies don't develop drugs for the greater good but to enhance their balance sheets.

So perhaps we should look at alternatives to the current system?

Here's one suggestion.

Put a small tax on all medicine and pool it in a global trust fund that handsomely awards innovation in pharmacology. Then breakthroughs drugs would be patent free and open for anyone to produce which would drive the costs down.

Doc

poppyvally wrote: »

Thank you Corkfeen I'm not good with the links. I suppose I should have known better than to put such a serious post into a moronic forum.

You should have know better then to put up vague unsubstantiated clams on the most popular forum on Boards. Without a link to show us what you say is true or telling us how this has personaly affected you why should anyone take the word of someone who has only 42 posts to their name? You didn't even tell us the name of the drug.
Although most people on this forum have a joke about most subject they also know when something is serious and normally behave accordingly.

oppenheimer1

themadchef wrote: »

Yes i completly agree with you. It needs to take parking spaces, unvouched expenses, and needless blank cheque writing off the books though.

We need a slash and burn on all departments, someone ruthless who knows where the stupid money is going. No one has the balls though, everyone is too comfy.

\ Anyway, back to dying.

I'm not saying waste shouldn't be eliminated - of course it should. Health is an emotive topic however and the way some people go on on this forum you would think thats the only thing the government should spend our money on. We spend enough on health as its stands. The problem in health is what we spend our money on - wages for hospital nurses, doctors and consultants.

Slashing and burning on departments would hurt people too btw, and not just civil servants but ordinary citizens who depend on the variety of services the State provides.

IM0

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Use sunscreen :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xavFb4WH7o0

Jimoslimos

eth0 wrote: »

If you aren't infact trolling or getting a kick out of playing devils advocate i'd love to know where you'd get these very right-wing yet pro-high taxation views from

Oh I agree with him also (oppenheimer1), and I'm far from right-wing (see my arguments against Libertarianism).

It's not Devil's Advocatism but rather injecting a little bit of reality into the situation. Yes, it would be wonderful to pump all our money into prolonging a dying person's life by 2-3yrs, but then you adversely affect the economy and funding (say education) in other areas, which then leads to less wealth generated in the future = less money to spend on health.

eth0

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Government has to have more priorities other than health. Otherwise the country wouldn't function.



The drug is not expensive due to its scarcity, but due to the enormous cost of developing such treatments. The reason the generic/out of patent drugs are so cheap is because those pharma companies only copy the "recipe". They don't have to pay for development - which is also risky, and doesn't pay off more often than not.

if they're not actually scarce then everyone who needs it should get one by right but milking a massive amount from rich people who can afford it is obviously a more important goal than trying to save everyone.

brilliant. we as human being should give ourselves a massive pat on the back for how far we'd go out of our way to help our fellow man.

oppenheimer1

eth0 wrote: »

I have read a good few of your posts and I'm starting to think you're just a somewhat cunning troll.

Every single time there is a post about some new tax the government is to introduce you'll be out saying how great it is, if there's austerity you'll be saying how necessary it is and how it will get out of trouble. If the power that be or a big company is screwing over an ordinary man on the street you'll be taking the side of the company or the PTB.

If you aren't infact trolling or getting a kick out of playing devils advocate i'd love to know where you'd get these very right-wing yet pro-high taxation views from

PTB? Looked through my posts, I didn't realise I had a fan.

Not that I have to explain my views to anyone, but my opinions are grounded in pragmatism, and are not of the left or the right. I do not like the fact that drug companies cream profit off the ill and the desperate. Money is a great motivator however and without the prospect of a windfall for companies for development of these treatments we would be relying solely on the output of universities for the development of new drugs. Progress would be painfully slow.

Its about the greater good, would you like to see drugs developed now with the prospect of them becoming cheap in 20 years, or would you like to see them never developed at all?

I do think the patent system for drugs is now out moded and a better, fairer system needs to be introduced. I have no idea what the system should be or how it would work - and most crucially, would it lead to the development of new effective cheaper treatments more quickly than the system we have now.

flutered

xflyer wrote: »

Welcome to the real world. Welcome to the real world where money talks. Welcome to the real world where you find your child has a problem but it's a two year wait for treatment. But when you have money to pay for it, it's a case of 'Will next Monday, do for you sir?'

That's life!

Welcome to my world.

i have to agree with you, because of my illness i have a medical card, i needed an mri in limerick, i was told it would take 16 months on the card, even tho there are three machines in the city, (thanks jp for two of them), i was told to get a letter from my gp saying that i needed one, i rang cork on a monday morning i was asked what day and what time would suit me this week, (thank you credit union).

eth0

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Oh I agree with him also (oppenheimer1), and I'm far from right-wing (see my arguments against Libertarianism).

It's not Devil's Advocatism but rather injecting a little bit of reality into the situation. Yes, it would be wonderful to pump all our money into prolonging a dying person's life by 2-3yrs, but then you adversely affect the economy and funding (say education) in other areas, which then leads to less wealth generated in the future = less money to spend on health.

ah the grim reality of the sityeation. that seems another one of his battle cries alright.

it wouldn't be wonderful to pump all our money into a dieing person's life but the problem here is that big pharmaceutical companies are demanding too much money be pumped into them for something very simple apparently justified by vague promises of new research by the said company while they're infact cleaning up a massive profit for themselves.

these private companies have far too much control for their own good and there should be more of this kind of carry on: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304537904577277001285472654.html

Annabella1

We have to accept that there are finite resources in healthcare.The Croke Park Deal means salaries are untouchable which means less resources in a shrinking budget towards these so called 'super drugs'.The UK have had this rationing system of drugs for over a decade.
It has nothing to do with rich or poor.There is no way the VHI would fund a drug costing 85k per annum given their financial situation
Demand in healthcare is endless...resources are finite

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that this seems like a sneaky underhand way for pharmaceutical companies to promote their drugs? UK/Ireland/Europe have tighter regs on advertising than the US (see antidepressants for dogs).

Hate watching sports from US TV sources, at the end I just want some KFC and Viagra.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So perhaps we should look at alternatives to the current system?

Here's one suggestion.

Put a small tax on all medicine and pool it in a global trust fund that handsomely awards innovation in pharmacology. Then breakthroughs drugs would be patent free and open for anyone to produce which would drive the costs down.

What about countries that opt-out? Would the money only be paid after the R+D and trials etc. etc.? How many countries would it have to be approved in before money was released? Lot of risk on the developers' part.