Who gets expensive cancer drugs? A tale of 2 nations

December 14, 2009

The well-worn notion that patients in the United States have unfettered access to the most expensive cancer drugs while the United Kingdom's nationalized health care system regularly denies access to some high-cost treatments needs rethinking, a team of bioethicists and health policy experts says in a report out today.

Delving into the question of expensive cancer drugs and who gets them, the team, led by Ruth R. Faden, Ph.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute for Bioethics, found both systems are far from perfect and both drew them into a hot-button issue of the current U.S. health care reform debate: rationing.

Critics of the U.K. system say care there is rationed -- that patients are denied some expensive therapies so that better health care can be provided to the nation as a whole. Critics of the U.S. system say care is rationed here, too -- that only those with the very best insurance and those who can afford sky-high out-of-pocket expenses have meaningful access to any and all high-priced therapies, especially at the end of life.

The authors found that with regard to very expensive cancer drugs, both characterizations are largely correct. "The issue is not whether rationing is a good thing or a bad thing," Faden says. "The issue is what we should do about extraordinarily expensive treatments, some of which do very little to improve how well or how long people live." At the same time, she adds, "there is no ethically defensible reason why some Americans have access to expensive cancer drugs and some do not."

"Policy makers and our society now need to do the hard work of developing a reasoned, evidence-based system of using health care resources wisely, and the first step is to engage in an honest and transparent conversation about the values that should guide these decisions, a conversation that is informed by facts, not politics," she says.

Faden and her colleagues, writing in the December issue of Milbank Quarterly, compared the costs of 11 high-priced cancer drugs. Seven of the medications are free to all British patients, who pay no out-of-pocket costs. The other four are not covered in the National Health Service because policy-makers have determined the costs are not worth the limited benefits they provide. Patients in the U.K. who still want these drugs have to pay all the costs on their own.

By comparison, most patients in the United States who have health insurance have some coverage for all 11 drugs, the question is how much they must pay out of pocket even with insurance. For example, the out-of-pocket costs for people on Medicare range from $1,200 to $24,000, and because many cancer patients on Medicare are on more than one drug, their out of pocket costs are often much higher. Access to expensive cancer drugs for patients with no insurance or very limited insurance may be completely out of reach, with costs exceeding $100,000 annually in some cases.

Even more telling, an American cancer patient faces the same financial obstacles regardless of how much benefit the cancer drug provides. For example, drugs like Herceptin, that can mean the difference between life and death for some breast cancer patients, can be no easier for American cancer patients to access than drugs like Avastin, which studies suggest has little or no impact on patient survival.

In comparing the two health care systems, though they wish they had more data to work with, the researchers find that the British system is in many ways fairer than the American system and that it is better structured to deal with difficult decisions about expensive end-of-life cancer drugs.

Faden says the notion that every patient should have unrestrained access to every drug available, no matter how unlikely the drug is to help and no matter how modest the benefit, is just not feasible. The problem is figuring out access strategies that work best for most people and that respect the range of values that patients facing serious illness and death hold. "Neither system is well equipped to think through the kind of challenges that all systems confront," she says.

For many people, certain drugs will only extend life for a few weeks or months, and that time can be marked by severe side effects from the drugs themselves, Faden notes. Still, choosing which path to pursue at the end of life is an agonizing decision.

"We're managing health care costs by not allowing some people to be treated at all or forcing them to face financial ruin by getting treatment," she says. "Who has an extra $100,000? That's why people sell their homes. That's why people's kids don't go to college. There's probably no more anguishing kind of decision than what a patient and her family face at the end of life."
The research was funded in part by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Grant in support of the Bioethics Rapid Response Initiative.

Other authors on the paper are Hugh R. Waters and Jonathon P. Leider of Johns Hopkins; Kalipso Chalkidou of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in London; and John Appleby, a health economist in London.

For more information: http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/mshome/?id=64

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Related Health Care Articles from Brightsurf:

Study evaluates new World Health Organization Labor Care Guide for maternity care providers
The World Health Organization developed the new Labor Care Guide to support clinicians in providing good quality, women-centered care during labor and childbirth.

Six ways primary care "medical homes" are lowering health care spending
New analysis of 394 U.S. primary care practices identifies the aspects of care delivery that are associated with lower health care spending and lower utilization of emergency care and hospital admissions.

Modifiable health risks linked to more than $730 billion in US health care costs
Modifiable health risks, such as obesity, high blood pressure, and smoking, were linked to over $730 billion in health care spending in the US in 2016, according to a study published in The Lancet Public Health.

Spending on primary care vs. other US health care expenditures
National health care survey data were used to assess the amount of money spent on primary care relative to other areas of health care spending in the US from 2002 to 2016.

MU Health Care neurologist publishes guidance related to COVID-19 and stroke care
A University of Missouri Health Care neurologist has published more than 40 new recommendations for evaluating and treating stroke patients based on international research examining the link between stroke and novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

Large federal program aimed at providing better health care underfunds primary care
Despite a mandate to help patients make better-informed health care decisions, a ten-year research program established under the Affordable Care Act has funded a relatively small number of studies that examine primary care, the setting where the majority of patients in the US receive treatment.

International medical graduates care for Medicare patients with greater health care needs
A study by a Massachusetts General Hospital research team indicates that internal medicine physicians who are graduates of medical schools outside the US care for Medicare patients with more complex medical needs than those cared for by graduates of American medical schools.

The Lancet Global Health: Improved access to care not sufficient to improve health, as epidemic of poor quality care revealed
Of the 8.6 million deaths from conditions treatable by health care, poor-quality care is responsible for an estimated 5 million deaths per year -- more than deaths due to insufficient access to care (3.6 million) .

Under Affordable Care Act, Americans have had more preventive care for heart health
By reducing out-of-pocket costs for preventive treatment, the Affordable Care Act appears to have encouraged more people to have health screenings related to their cardiovascular health.

High-deductible health care plans curb both cost and usage, including preventive care
A team of researchers based at IUPUI has conducted the first systematic review of studies examining the relationship between high-deductible health care plans and the use of health care services.

Read More: Health Care News and Health Care Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.