UK Provides No Public Funding for Genentech’s Avastin Users
The
Financial Times “A dose of reality” explores the controversy over the British National Health Service (NHS) refusal to pay for medical services for patients that use certain high cost drugs. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) advises the NHS on the cost-benefit of drugs. Genentech’s (DNA) Avastin cancer treatment is approved for sale in the UK, but NICE has determined that it is not cost effective.
The first issue is whether the NHS should provide medical services for cancer patients willing to pay for Avastin or other high cost drugs themselves. Alan Johnson (health secretary) pledged to review “top-up payments”. Previously, he contended that the practice would break the NHS principle of equal access. The British have always had a parallel private health insurance system and private doctors and hospitals for those that could afford to pay up.
The second issue that the FT surfaced is whether cost-benefit stifles innovation. Harpal Kumar, head of charity Cancer Research states that most cancers are cured through surgery and radiation – not drugs. NICE agrees, and further states that advanced drugs only extend life by a few months.
The biotechnology industry counters that they must be paid huge sums for small innovations to promote expensive research. Progress is in slow and steady steps, with very few dramatic breakthroughs. The industry claims that traditional cost-benefits should not apply.
I gained an important insight into our own American health system. It seems that Americans have only two choices in health insurance: all-inclusive, catastrophic insurance and limited benefit plans. Both types of insurance typically include high cost hospital administered drugs. The only difference is that limited benefit plans have a lifetime cap of $30,000 to $50,000.
We Americans would be better served if our private health insurers adapted a cost-benefit based third option. This middle ground modeled after the British system would be far better than low lifetime caps. Give insurance buyers the option of foregoing extremely expensive end of life treatments for substantially lower premiums. The side benefit is that eliminating high cost drugs from most insurance plans would force these drugs to be more competitively priced.
I know critics will complain that I am proposing a two-tier healthcare system, where only the wealthy get advanced treatments. I say “get real”- all or nothing is certainly not working.
No Disclosures.
Related Stories
The above story is the opinion of the author only and it does not reflect
iStockAnalyst opinion. Further, the author is not personally advising you
regarding the suitability of the story for your investment needs. In no event
iStockAnalyst will be liable for any loss or damage including without
limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage
whatsoever arising from or arising out of, or in connection with the use of this
information. Please consult your investment advisor before making any investment
decision.