High Priced Cancer Drugs

High Priced Cancer Drug Wars

Cancer Drug Price Disparity Sparks Congressional Scrutiny

The exorbitant cost of a cancer drug, priced at $129,000 per year in the United States—more than triple the price in Japan and Sweden and quadruple the cost in Canada—has triggered public outcry and caught the attention of Congress. In a joint effort, 12 representatives have joined forces with nonprofit organizations to call for a public hearing to address the pricing of this drug.

The drug in question, Xtandi, used in prostate cancer treatment, is co-licensed by Astellas Pharma Inc. of Japan and Medivation Inc. of the United States. Notably, Xtandi was developed at a US university with the support of taxpayer-funded grants. This fact grants the federal government the authority to revoke the drug’s patent if the terms are deemed unreasonable, as stated in the letter issued on Monday.

The letter, signed by prominent figures including Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Representative Elijah Cummings, highlights the concern that charging higher prices to US residents compared to individuals in other countries fails to meet the obligation of making the invention accessible to the American population on reasonable terms. Full Story

High Priced Cancer Drugs: No Morality at All

Amid ongoing discussions regarding scientific approaches, targeted populations, and healthcare outcomes, a challenging ethical dilemma arises—when does the extension of a few additional months of life become justifiable in the face of increasing healthcare costs? Should there be an unrestricted approach to paying for an expensive vaccine if a family wishes to prolong a relative’s life as much as possible? If not, how should limits be determined, and who should be responsible for making such decisions?

“This is an enormous dilemma. Our healthcare system is not equipped to address this issue effectively,” remarks Daniel Callahan, PhD, President Emeritus of the Hastings Center, a bioethics institute, and author of “The Roots of Bioethics: Health, Progress, Technology, Death.” “If we allocate $100,000 to a drug that offers limited survival time, what are the opportunity costs? Unfortunately, we are currently unable to make such calculations.”

There is significant resistance to considering cost as a factor. Many doctors are reluctant to discuss costs with their patients, and they are not obligated to do so. As a result, we are faced with a challenging problem. To address costs, we must stand in the way of individuals and families and their desires for what they believe may benefit them. Nobody wants to engage in that discussion. However, what may appear highly valuable to individuals could harm the healthcare system.

“Some people may be willing to incur financial hardships,” adds Callahan. “Pharmaceutical companies may not need to sell a large volume of drugs to generate substantial profits. This also puts insurers in a difficult position. How can they decline a $100,000-per-year vaccine that potentially provides an extra year or two of life?”

Callahan captures the essence of what he refers to as the “hype of hope and remarkable breakthroughs.” He notes that innovative medicine has operated without limits or boundaries in the past. “It’s like exploring outer space—you can always go further. We are discovering expensive ways to prolong the lives of sick individuals, and we must contemplate the essence of medicine and what is truly best for society.” ” NCBI