Herceptin decision a 'cruel blow'

Hi all,

I sympathise with the women and their families who are sufferring with breast cancer. Both my grandmother and aunt died of breast at relatively young ages so I have been watching the situation with great interest.

The issue though is NOT one of cost, Wake up Kiwis and read beyond the front page of the media headlines! It's about the science behind the claims and I'm sorry but the more I read the more confused I become - the evidence is ambiguous at best. Anyone who has ever completed a course in statistical analysis or conducted research of any kind, knows full well that if you shift the goalposts and use a different test you can get a different answer. The people testing these drugs often are being paid by the drug companies - can anyone else spell Ethical Dilemma!

Also, the "well everyone else is doing it" argument is quite frankly stupid. I was living in the UK when the Herceptin hype first raised its head and unlike in New Zealand the UK health boards (some of them I hasten to add), caved into this mad public hype and funded the treatment. Something that they themselves are regretting, and the whole country isnt funded either, in County X you can get treatment fully funded, in County Y you get nothing - so its much more of a postcode lottery than here - at least the terms are the same for everyone.

Well done Pharmac and its staff for taking the time to analyse the evidence and make a carefully considered and objective judgment. for those of you who cannot get past the front page of the Dom Post lets recap what Pharmac do provide:

1. Funding for a 9 week course of Herceptin 2. Significant amount of money into a trial to provide additional evidence

Finally, and apologies for the length of this post, the 12 month course could cause more problems than it cures. Simply because Roche say its a wonder drug doesnt actually mean that it is.

The people at Pharmac, including its CEO, Board and Committees are not heartless bureacrats; this decision cannot have been made lightly. These are medical and scientific proffessionals who are doing an immensely difficult job and under tremendous pressure.

No Kai,

Money should not be an issuse at all and i think its time for you to grow up. Money should deffinatly not be an issue when it comes to a drug that is a platform of hope for ALL cancer victims! This drug should be embraced as something that will not only give hope but a reasuraance that when other cancer drugs other than chemotherapy and raditation become avalible then anyone who needs them can access them with out having to pay a kings ransom.

"It's not about who can scream the loudest and make the most noise." No your right...its not. Its about people fighting for the same standard of care and rights that people receive in other countries. This country is far more concerned with being "PC" and paying out millions of dollars to Iwi's and people who are scamming the government than saving lives and giving people hope which is the most precious gift of all.

Cost is not really an issue in the long run thou. If 9 weeks is the more effective course, then Roche will have to raise it's prices to get a return on its investment, so we will end up paying the same amount of money anyway. But in the short run, we can treat more women with this drug and spend the savings else where in the health system.

So how come very few people are reporting this side of the debate??

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=88671&fm=psp,nwl

Pharmac did in fact consult with a wide range of people, including oncologists.

http://www.pharmac.govt.nz./2008/08/07/Public%20Summary%20of%20Submissions%20August%202008.pdf

This summary of all the submissions and Pharmac's responses to them was posted on the Pharmac website. It addresses most of the points brought up on this comments page. This is a good start for anybody that would like to inform themselves of the issues in this debate would, whether they agree with Pharmac's decision or not.

In response to Kai....Excuse me? How can you compare providing funding for kids to visit a doctor free of charge, with using the money to potentially save a life?

I happen to agree with the decision - but at the same time, I hardly think that providing funding for parents to take their kids to the Dr when they have snotty noses, is a more "appropriate" way of spending the money. Hardly comparable when we're talking about saving a life. Parents choose to bring children into this world - if they can't afford healthcare and other expenses associated with children, they perhaps they should have given some thought to bringing those kids into this world?

A separate issue completely - but the funding is with Pharmac to spend on funding medicines - so it isn't going to help the burn therapy, the hip replacements, the cataracts surgery, the doctors visits anyway - unless I am mis-informed?

Cost shouldn't be an issue?

It's a clear case of, 'time to grow up'.

Money and resources are not infinite - even if we paid 100% tax, we couldn't afford to do all things for all people.

This isn't just a case of a few people wanting their cake and wanting to eat it - they want to eat someone else's cake too.

I suggest those people complaining about Pharmac instead put their money where their mouth is.

I think its appalling. As stated on Act's website the present govt can spend $25million relocating a snail (that isn't really as endangered as they thought) but can not spare to make funding available for women who are dying of this horrid cancer.

Pharmac's decision not to fund the breast cancer drug for the longer term of 12 months is probably predictable. They say the science suggests that the benefit to the patients' would not be any better for the longer term funding than the current 9 weeks. Maybe the truth is that the drug is usesless full stop, just another drug company con job. Prospective patients should take the time to dig deep and find out the real truth about this drug, it's limitations, possible dangerous and permanently harmful side effects etc, and then maybe many of them will think twice about wanting to use it.

Come on people, there is a drug avalible to improve womans and in some case mens chance of surviving this type of cancer. Why are there so many ignorant people out there?? You make me SICK. Pharmac did not even need to do a trial....the evidence speaks for its self. Other...more advance countires than ours are funding for 12 months!!! THERE YOU GO!!! The proof is there. We should be cutting funding for all of the people who have self inflicted suffering....not people who wake up one day and discover they have cancer. We should be giving people all of the help and medication they requiure wether it costs $10 or $100,000. Cost should not be an issue over peoples lives.