"I shudder at the thought of a government panel assigning a value to a day of a person's life." Louisiana Sen. David Vitter said that in response to the Food and Drug Administration's possible removal of the drug Avastin as a treatment for advanced breast cancer. The Republican went on, "It is sickening to think that care would be withheld from a patient simply because their life is not deemed valuable enough."
Okay, senator, would you spend a billion taxpayer dollars to keep a terminal patient going for an extra 24 hours? Don't bother answering, because your dramatics have zero to do with the issues involved. The FDA's job is merely to judge a drug's effectiveness. An FDA advisory committee found that Avastin did not help breast cancer patients live longer, while its toxic side effects made them feel sicker. At a cost of around $90,000 a year, this is an expensive drug, but its price plays no role in these deliberations.
Because of the passions surrounding the debate — fanned by "anti-government" Republicans and Avastin's maker, Genentech, owned by the Swiss company Roche — the FDA initially overrode the committee and allowed the continued use of Avastin for breast cancer pending further study.
When hearings on Avastin commence late this month, expect gravely ill women to credit it for their survival. Expect think tanks funded by the pharmaceutical industry to churn out op-eds in its favor. And expect politicians who say they don't want government in health care to nonetheless insist that government pay for a costly breast cancer treatment deemed to do more harm than good.
It happens that the FDA still considers Avastin valuable for treating colorectal, lung, kidney and brain cancers. If it were a "miracle drug" for advanced breast cancer, why would the FDA nix that use and approve the others?
Ideally, only science will influence the FDA's final decision, expected in September.
Supporting Roche's position is a recent reversal by European regulators, relaxing their own curbs on treating breast cancer patients with Avastin. (They recommended its possible utility in combination with Xeloda, another drug made by Roche.) That judgment awaits final approval by the European Commission.
We understand the terror felt by women with advanced breast cancer and their understandable wish to try all their options. But an option is meaningless if unbiased research doesn't back it up as potentially helpful. And when our society pays for treatments that don't work, it has less money for those that do.
Even if the FDA vetoes Avastin as a breast-cancer drug, it would still accept it for other diseases. Thus, doctors could continue prescribing Avastin off-label to breast cancer patients. However, FDA disapproval of Avastin as a breast cancer treatment would prompt private insurers to not cover that use — even though they legally could.
So much for the Republican fairy-tale vision of private insurers giving us whatever we want because they must compete for our business. The realities will also not stop "conservatives" from grandstanding during the Avastin hearings with their worn complaints about government bureaucrats making important health care decisions.
Meanwhile, Rep. Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, makes this interesting argument in bashing the FDA's position on Avastin: "It is troubling that women in Germany and France will soon have access to a life-saving drug, while women in the U.S. will not."
Heavens. Granger couldn't possibly be talking about those socialized health care systems in Europe that she and other Republicans say they are trying to save us from. But she is.
There will be difficult debates ahead on what expensive medical care taxpayers should subsidize. This is not one of them.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
2 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Dear Ms. Harrop,
I'm outraged over the article you wrote on June 9, 2011 regarding Avastin. Specifically you stated, "We understand the terror felt by women with advanced breast cancer and their understandable wish to try all their options. But an option is meaningless if unbiased research doesn't back it up as potentially helpful. And when our society pays for treatments that don't work, it has less money for those that do."
Have you ever been diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer? Or faced any terminal illness with limited treatment options? If not, please don't say you understand because you couldn't possibly understand. How can you say the option is meaningless when there are super responders who have now been on Avastin for 3 + years and show no evidence of disease?
My name is Crystal Hanna and I will be celebrating my 36th birthday on July 1. I'm a wife and mother to two small children (Alex age 4 and Riley soon to be 7 years old). I was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 2008. This was quite a shock to me, because I was in great physical shape otherwise. I'd been training for long-distance races and just completed a half marathon in my hometown of Parkersburg, WV. My treatment plan was aggressive starting with surgery followed by 6 months of chemotherapy and 7 weeks of daily radiation. Unfortunately, in July 2010, a routine PET scan found metastatic disease with multiple tumors in my liver and bones. Since then, I've been on Avastin. My recent PET scan shows no active disease.
I've had no side effects from the drug, and it has enabled me to live another year without disease progression. During that year, I've spent a lot of quality time with my family. I've continued to work part-time while on weekly chemotherapy. I saw my daughter get baptized. We took our first Disney World family vacation. I've continued to exercise by walking in the neighborhood with my parents. I could go on and on about the benefits...
I pray that one day there will be a cure. Until then, I pray that effective drugs will be available to those who need them. For me, that drug is Avastin. We all have unique chemistry. What works for one will not likely work for all. Avastin gives me hope that I will continue to respond well until the next new drug is available.
As you say, I will be one of those "gravely ill" women speaking at the FDA's hearing on Avastin in June. I feel it is morally and ethically wrong to discontinue treatment for those of us who are benefiting. Even if we can get the drug prescribed off label, our insurance companies will likely not pay and the drug costs $4,000 per treatment (or $8,000 per month).
Just wanted to give you my perspective. Hope you and your loved ones never face cancer.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Crystal Hanna
Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:32 PM
|
|
|
|
FROMA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING, FROMA SELLS COMMERCIALS............WHAT AN UNCONSCIENTIOUS PERSON FROMA HARROP IS CONDEMNING WOMEN TO DIE BASED ON MONETARY AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS. MY WIFE HAS BEEN ON AVASTIN FOR OVER THREE YEARS NOW WITH NO SIDE EFFECTS AND GIVEN A LIFE WITH DIGNITY AND HOPE. HER MARKERS STAY AT ZERO. ITS BIASED WANNABE POLITICOS LIKE HER WHO ARE THE UNFORTUNATE ONES, NEEDING TO WRITE CONTROVERSIAL DRIVEL FOR SELF ESTEEM AND EXPOSURE.
BILLIONS TO SAVE ONE LIFE FOR 24 HOURS.....HOW DRAMATIC AND STUPID. SHE HAS NOT DONE HER HOMEWORK ON THIS ONE AS 18,000 WOMEN ARE ALIVE AND FOR YEARS BECAUSE OF AVASTIN. SHE RESORTS TO DISPARAGING REPUBLICANS WHO VALUE LIFE.
AND THERE IT IS...............THIS IS ABOUT PARTISAN POLITICS, WHICH BY THE WAY IS RUINING AMERICA, THAT AND EVIL COMMUNISTS LIKE HER WHO STIR THE POT FOR FINANCIAL GAIN AND POLITICAL POSTURING EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO SAY WOMEN DYING IS ACCEPTABLE.
I WISH WE HAD EUROPES HEALTH CARE SYSTEM (YES I HAVE STUDIED) AND THE DEFINITIVE WORD THERE IS "CARE". MANY DOCTORS HERE WILL TELL YOU THAT WE ARE LAGGING BEHIND IN CARE, RESEARCH AND EFFECTIVENESS, YET SHE THINKS WOMEN DYING IS THE ANSWER.
FROMA, YOU TRULY NEED SOMEONE TO LOVE YOU. UNLIKE THE ELOQUENT LETTER WRITTEN BY MS HANNA, I HOPE YOU DO GET CANCER. ONLY THEN WILL RIGHTEOUS EGOTISTICAL SELF PROCLAIMED EXPERTS LIKE YOURSELF UNDERSTAND WHAT LOVE AND COMPASSION ARE. MAYBE A LOVED ONE WILL GET BREAST CANCER, SUFFER THROUGH THOUGHTLESS AND HATEFUL COMMENTS LIKE YOURS AND FIND OUT ONLY AVASTIN WILL SAVE HER LIFE. I HATE MYSELF FOR VOICING SOMETHING CRUEL LIKE THAT AND NEVER HAVE IN MY 60 PLUS YEARS, BUT I HATE FOOLS LIKE HER EVEN MORE.
BUT WAIT, SHE HAS MONEY FOR TREATMENTS SO IT IS EASY TO SLAM THOSE WHO DON'T, SHE IS A FINANCIAL SNOB AND BIGOT. I TAUGHT MY DAUGHTERS TO NOT CURSE AND SAVE THEM FOR WHEN YOU NEED THEM. "GOSH DARN" DOES NOT WORK WHEN YOU STUMP YOUR TOE. SHE IS MY STUMPED TOE. DAMN RIGHT I AM VENTING........
SHE HAS NO PROBLEMS GIVING BILLIONS TO COUNTRIES THAT HATE US, HAS NO PROBLEMS GIVING BILLIONS IN AID TO ILLEGALS, HAS NO PROBLEM GIVING BILLIONS IN ENTITLEMENTS TO THOSE LAZY BASTARDS THAT LIBERALS LOVE. HAS NO PROBLEM SPENDING BILLIONS ON BOMBS, BUT HAS A PROBLEM SPENDING TO KEEP OUR LOVED ONES ALIVE. LAW ABIDING, TAX PAYING LEGAL AMERICANS. THE DECISION TO RECOMMEND AVASTIN SHOULD BE BETWEEN PATIENT AND DOCTOR, NOT BY COMMITTEE OR BY A PREJUDICED COLOMNIST.
I DON'T CARE FROMA WHERE YOU CAME, BUTTA YOU NEEDA DISAPPEAR.............AND GET A LIFE, ONE WITH COMPASSION FOR YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS. BY THE WAY I AM A BLUE DOG LIBERAL, BUT NOT THE CUR SHE IS. I WANT TO FEEL GUILTY FOR VENTING SO ADAMANTLY, BUT SADLY FOR ME AND MY CONSCIENCE, DON'T BECAUSE I AM FIGHTING TO SAVE MY WIFES LIFE FROMA WANTS TO END. i HOPE SHE CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT.........UNDER HER ROCK.
EDITORS, YOU MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PRINT THIS PER YOUR POLICY BUT WANTING CONTROVERSY IN THE FOREFRONT IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, AND THIS WOMAN NEEDS A GOOD BUTT KICKING. AND SHAME ON YOU FOR PROMOTING DEATH IN OUR BELOVED WOMEN. ANYWAY, I FEEL BETTER GETTING THAT LOAD OFF MY CHEST.
P.A.
Comment: #2
Posted by: P.A.
Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
