Recently I’ve been reading some articles online about the costs of cancer medications like Avastin* and Gleevec. When insurance companies up the cost of co-pays for these medications (our very own Hildy Dillon, Senior Vice President, Patient Services responded to this NYTimes article in a letter to the editor), it can cost the patient many thousands of dollars, and even doctors and medical practices can be hard hit by the rising cost of drugs. For the patients interviewed in these articles, the benefits outweigh the costs because the drugs mean living longer, but many patients do not have the adequate monetary resources to cover the costs of their medications. It’s not even fully clear to the medical industry if the extended length of life for some patients is because of drugs like Avastin.
Our Public Policy team here at The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) has also been learning about these issues of higher co-pays vs. the benefits of the cancer drugs, and they are interested in hearing if you are experiencing some of this from your insurance companies.
Please consider sharing your answers to the following questions.
Do you have to pay more for blood cancer medications than you used to?
Do you rely on Gleevec or any other high priced medicine? Do the benefits outweigh the cost?
Would you be interested in LLS fighting for lower drug co-pays?
Leave your answers and comments here or you can contact the Office of Public Policy by filling out our online contact form.
Learn more about how you can get involved with the Office of Public Policy as an advocacy volunteer.
*We understand that blood cancer patients do not use Avastin, but we believe that issues like this that may affect other cancer patients may ultimately affect the blood cancer patients we seek to serve.
"Do you rely on Gleevec or any other high priced medicine? Do the benefits outweigh the cost?"
This seems like a very peculiar question to ask an individual. Gleevec is responsible for extending the life of cancer patients. Would you expect anyone to say that they would rather have their life shortened than have spent the money it cost to purchase the Gleevec? I may be wrong but that seems like an unlikely situation - maybe someone will say they would have rather left a larger inheritance than they can now, but that seems like that would be a terribly small universe of individuals.
Alternatively a social science researcher could likely monetize the value of Gleevec and other life-saving drugs in the aggregate. It doesn't seem too complicated to determine that on average Gleevec extends life by X months. And during those months of life the average patient contributes $Y to the economy. The development and cost of Gleevec was $Z. Obviously this is a gross oversimplification, but this is exactly the kind of work actuaries and economists perform every day.
That is a vastly different question than asking Bob whether the benefits (living longer and/or with higher quality) outweighs the cost of the medicine. Assuming the medication is effective, I can't imagine someone would in effect say "in hindsight, I shouldn't have taken those drugs - those extra months/years weren't worth it."