Christmas Future For Obamacare
Laura Donnelly writes in the Telegraph/UK that thousands of cancer patients will be denied treatment -- common drugs for breast, bowel, prostate, pancreatic and blood cancer will no longer be funded by the British National Health Service, in the wake of big cutbacks:
More than 5,000 cancer patients will be denied life-extending drugs under plans which charities say are a "dreadful" step backwards for the NHS.Health officials have just announced sweeping restrictions on treatment, which will mean patients with breast, bowel, skin and pancreatic cancer will no longer be able to receive drugs funded by the NHS.
In total, 17 cancer drugs for 25 different indications will no longer be paid for in future.
These drugs were paid for out of a special fund:
The Cancer Drugs Fund was launched in 2011, following a manifesto pledge by David Cameron, who said patients should no longer be denied drugs on cost grounds.Since its launch four years ago it has benefitted more than 50,000 patients, who received treatment which NHS rationing bodies had refused to pay for.
But now the fund's budget is massively overspent.
...Drugs which will no longer be funded include Kadcyla for advanced breast cancer, Avastin for many bowel and breast cancer patients, Revlimid and Imnovid for multiple myeloma, and Abraxane, the first treatment for pancreatic cancer in 17 years.
Breast cancer charities said they were particularly concerned about Kadcyla, currently prescribed to around 800 women a year, which has been shown to extend life by an average of six months, with fewer side effectives than any alternatives.
Samia al Qadhi, Chief Executive at Breast Cancer Care, said: "This devastating decision will mean shattered hopes for thousands of women who could have been helped by these drugs.
"It is completely unacceptable that, in 2015, this inflexible system is blocking access to life-extending treatments, like Kadcyla. Treatments that could give people valuable extra time with their loved ones, and help them continue to contribute to society for many months or even years.
De facto death panels -- (I predict!) coming eventually to an America near you.
By the way, I now only have sub-standard care, ever since the government got all up in our healthcare. It's the same HMO that provided me with excellent and affordable care for decades. It's just that in the wake of Obamacare passing, my premium became unaffordable and then I got a deductible so high that when I go to the doctor, I tell them that I can't actually afford any treatment beyond a photocopied sheet of exercises to do.
The reality of "affordable" health care: It isn't affordable, it isn't healthy, and it sure fucking isn't care.








A few thoughts
Blocking access and not having the cash to pay are two separate things
Six extra months? At what cost
Can still contribute to society? If you can afford to buy your own meds what are you contributing to society?
lujlp at September 6, 2015 2:04 AM
Six extra months at a gazillion dollars.
Terminal is terminal. That is what hospice is for. To help with the transition from living to death in a humane manner.
Besides, why wouldn't big Pharm want their products to be affordable enough that normal salaries/deductibles/insurance practices cover them.
fyi - I've been the parent of a non-contributing child as jujlp puts it and (like most adults) have seen people move towards death gracefully and as well as some fighting tooth and nail the whole way whatever the cost to anyone around them. It is what it is.
Bob in Texas at September 6, 2015 4:22 AM
While I'm no fan of government-funded health care, you do have to realize that this is no different with private insurance. Your insurance has things it pays, and things it doesn't. When you reach your cap, or when a medication isn't on their list, they don't pay either.
Government funded healthcare has three problems:
- People seem to think that the government has a bottomless bucket of money, and should pay everything for everyone.
- Government organizations are horribly inefficient, because there is never any real motivation to remove bloat. So petty bureaucrats build petty little empires, and the actual purpose of the organization becomes secondary.
- Having only a single program removes choice. If there is a government program, there's no excuse to not let people opt out and go private anyway. Let's see which programs are the best, shall we?
a_random_guy at September 6, 2015 4:50 AM
@lujlp & random: You don't appear to understand that the UK's NHS is a sole provider system. Paying for treatment or medication is unlawful and going to another country to receive treatment or medications is grounds for the government to terminate eligibility for any (or, even all) services under the NHS. Canada is different in that it is a "single payor" system ( the government will pay - eventually- for any care or medication you are determined eligible for, which it covers), but, you can purchase private insurance or go to another country to receive treatment or medications either not covered or because you don't choose to wait the months to years until that will be provided. So, the Canadian system is similar to the VA system in the U.S., and Canadians who can afford to, come to the U.S. for care and medications needed sooner than those are available in Canada.
So, in the UK, if the NHS does not provide the treatment or medication, your choices are suffer, or die, or go to the black market. Cost is the primary factor determining eligibility as the budget determines availability.
And while Obama (and, Trump) favor a single payor system, like Canada, what Hillary proposed (when Bill was Prez) was a sole provider system. Both are very different from private insurance because you can always buy different or additional insurance (my spouse & I are covered under 2 plans & our special needs child is also covered by Medicaid), or you can pay cash (which is the way we pay for most dental care).
Wfjag at September 6, 2015 5:03 AM
What Wfjag said. Also, Amy's complaint is that most of her health care dollars are being spent on political rent seeking.
Ben at September 6, 2015 5:46 AM
Thanks, Wfjag, for explaining that.
Amy Alkon at September 6, 2015 6:16 AM
I'm not sure that description of UK healthcare is entirely correct. I have several acquaintances in the UK from parenting forums, a couple who also happen to work for the NHS. As I've heard from their posts, there are other care options available as well and you don't have to use NHS services, just most do because they don't have to pay for it. It did sound like you couldn't use both though, meaning you couldn't get NHS care and also be paying for services at the same time.
BunnyGirl at September 6, 2015 8:50 AM
Besides, why wouldn't big Pharm want their products to be affordable enough that normal salaries/deductibles/insurance practices cover them.
Becuase as long as idiots are willing to overpay why not take their money?
lujlp at September 6, 2015 11:35 AM
I posted a linkie in one of the linkies with a side bacon threads about the estimate that something on the order of 307K VA patients died while on a waiting list.
That is our future, as the VA is a single payer system that our betters desire to inflict upon us. What? you think you deserve better treatment than someone who served?
Oh, and the people who put them on secret waiting lists denying them care? got bonuses and promotions based on their efficiency...
I R A Darth Aggie at September 6, 2015 12:00 PM
Really good piece on this issue here by Peter Wehner:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/09/06/the-wrong-fight-for-christians-to-wage/
Amy Alkon at September 6, 2015 1:29 PM
Just wait until the long-delayed employer mandate kicks in. You know, the can the Obama Administration has been kicking down the road for the past two years.
Most working Americans are still on an exempted employer plan and so haven't been hit with the reality of Obamacare.
Conan the Grammarian at September 7, 2015 4:58 PM
Leave a comment