Cancer Research, Drug Manufacturers and NICE

[sandie]

We all spend our time doing events to raise money for Cancer charity's, We give donations for research in the hope that a cure can be found to help those in need.

There must have been billions raised from the general public. Where does the money go, the research is it passed to the drug companies, if so why do they charge stupid prices for the drugs claiming the cost of research and manufacture.

Are the drug company's doing their own research and if so where is the money that we all donate going.

I was under the impression that University's did the research funded by the goverment, do the Cancer charity's have their own labs or do they donate the funds.

 

My rant is that you raise money for a Cancer Charity in the firm belief that it will help those that need it.

 

What I can not understand is NICE and their power to deny drugs that can help people on a cost issue. The people who need the drugs ar in their 60's to 80's who have paid their taxes from 14 year old and some have fought for their country in the second word war and other conflicts.

[steev]

And then the drug trials (like the very recent statins trial that was in the news) are done by the drug companies, who send out big flowery press releases that plug the positive results without mentioning the rather large percentage of patients who experienced side-effects. Who here heard any mention of side-effects when the statin trial results were published?

 

The when NICE finally OK things for general use their sales people, who are worse than US political lobbyists, hammer away at GPs, buyers, & health authorities, offering what are effectively bribes to use/prescribe their overpriced drugs instead of cheaper generic alternatives which are sometimes just as effective.

 

I can't remember the exact figure, but I read somewhere that around 8000 people in the last half of last year had serious side-effects to prescription drugs, & in the whole of last year around 900 died. Ten years ago it was less than half that amount.

[Halibut]

What I can not understand is NICE and their power to deny drugs that can help people on a cost issue.

It's not rocket science sandie. There isn't a limitless amount of cash available - it makes sense to use what money there is available on proven and cost effective treatments.

The people who need the drugs ar in their 60's to 80's who have paid their taxes from 14 year old and some have fought for their country in the second word war and other conflicts.

Since when did cancer only effect those over 60?

[Itrytoplease]

Since this thread was started in 2008 we have had " AVASTIN " banned by NICE over costs,

yesterday/today (08/08/14) Nice have seen fit to ban yet another Cancer drug over costs, the drug " KADCYLA "

As I understand it 40% of the costs of R & D are met by charitable donations, donations made by you and me, so I ask why are cancer drugs so expensive? £90,000 per patient for Kadcyla.

It seems to me that the man/woman in the street who throws the odd pound coin into the charity box for cancer research is waisting their time, should they then go on to develop cancer the chances are they will not be given the drugs that can prolong life, so are we just financing drugs that only the rich can get access to?

[taxman]

NICE must look at the cost of Kadcyla at £90,000 per person, for a possible extension of life for 6 months and compare that cost/benefit to providing a hundred people with a hip replacement. It might sound callous but it's something they must do.

 

Of course this neither benefits the cancer patient or the drug company. If nobody buys the drug then the company have wasted all that money on R & D. Surely dropping the cost and recouping some money is better than insisting on such a high price and having the drug unused and left on the shelf.

[Cyclone]

Edit - just realised that this is a resurrected thread from 6 years ago.

 

We all spend our time doing events to raise money for Cancer charity's, We give donations for research in the hope that a cure can be found to help those in need.

There must have been billions raised from the general public. Where does the money go, the research is it passed to the drug companies,

It certainly isn't given to the pharmaceutical companies free of charge.

if so why do they charge stupid prices for the drugs claiming the cost of research and manufacture.

Are the drug company's doing their own research and if so where is the money that we all donate going.

Yes, they spend huge amounts funding research.

 

A lot of your donations might go to cancer care, rather than cancer research.

I was under the impression that University's did the research funded by the goverment,

No, the government funds relatively little research. The industry funds the majority of it, with charities funding some.

do the Cancer charity's have their own labs or do they donate the funds.

I can't say for sure, but I doubt that any charity has it's own research lab.

 

My rant is that you raise money for a Cancer Charity in the firm belief that it will help those that need it.

And what makes you think that it isn't? Your previous paragraph is full of questions, indicating that you really don't know.

 

What I can not understand is NICE and their power to deny drugs that can help people on a cost issue.

You don't understand how the NHS has a limited amount of resource and must use that in the most effective way?

The people who need the drugs ar in their 60's to 80's who have paid their taxes from 14 year old and some have fought for their country in the second word war and other conflicts.

So?

That doesn't mean that the country today has an unlimited amount to spend on drugs. Limited resources, some decisions have to be made about how that money will be spent.

 

---------- Post added 08-08-2014 at 08:37 ----------

 

And then the drug trials (like the very recent statins trial that was in the news) are done by the drug companies, who send out big flowery press releases that plug the positive results without mentioning the rather large percentage of patients who experienced side-effects. Who here heard any mention of side-effects when the statin trial results were published?

Did you read the published papers (the ones in the medical journals, that were peer reviewed) or did you just read the bits that the newspapers chose to report?

 

The when NICE finally OK things for general use their sales people, who are worse than US political lobbyists, hammer away at GPs, buyers, & health authorities, offering what are effectively bribes to use/prescribe their overpriced drugs instead of cheaper generic alternatives which are sometimes just as effective.

Evidence?

 

I can't remember the exact figure, but I read somewhere that around 8000 people in the last half of last year had serious side-effects to prescription drugs, & in the whole of last year around 900 died. Ten years ago it was less than half that amount.

As a fragment of information that's entirely meaningless. Drugs have side effects, nobody disputes that. The question is whether the beneficial effects outweigh the chance of side effects.

[geared]

Cyclone is correct.

 

Cancer Research costs a phenomenal amount of money, and very little comes from the government.

Drug companies fund a fair bit, but it's only the stuff that is likely to return them a profit.

 

The basic science, understanding and often the breakthrough stuff is usually funded by charity - this is especially true for rare/different forms of cancer as drug companies are not too interested in this due to the smaller market size.

 

Also alot of money donated go's on treatment and support for cancer patients and families.

[Itrytoplease]

A drug company rep stated yesterday on bbc news that there hasn't been a single cancer drug licenced for use in the UK since 2007.

Also stated that since 2011 - 8 drugs had been submited to NICE and each one rejscted on grounds of cost.

 

True or False?

[Eater Sundae]

A drug company rep stated yesterday on bbc news that there hasn't been a single cancer drug licenced for use in the UK since 2007.

Also stated that since 2011 - 8 drugs had been submited to NICE and each one rejscted on grounds of cost.

 

True or False?

 

I suppose that if it's true, then maybe the drugs companies need to review their busines model. None in eight looks like a poor return on their investment. Each of these drugs will have involved great expense in getting it to where it is now, only to find there isn't a market for it at the price they want to sell it. The more times that this happens, then their return on R&D becomes worse, putting even more pressure on the next R&D project to provide even greater returns to cover for the previous losses.

 

I think taxman put it well with the cost-benefit comparison with such as hip replacements. The decision makers at NICE must have a soul destroying job, in having to knock back some treatments that would have been of benefit to some people, but it is an essential job to ensure best value is gained from the resources available.

 

Drugs companies will of course lobby for their (expensive) treatments to be made available on the NHS. NICE must look at 5he bigger picture.

 

Another problem that the drugs companies might have is that they are seen as big businesses out to make as much profit as possible and so public opinion is not on their side. The public wants all its treatments to be cheap.

[Fogey]

Saw some of this on channel 4 news. Was heartbreaking to see the 30odd year old mother asking how you can put a price on someones life yet admitting she understood the issue of cost and benefit value.

 

In comparison I was absolutely appalled with the exGP who works for the drugs company who wouldn't answer questions directly about the point the company can afford to drop the price, was desperately trying to deflect attention from the staggering profit figures (IIRC 11.5bn last year?) and seemed to be just drumming up support to try to get public pressure put on NICE to spend whatever it took to buy every drug they want to sell at whatever price they fancy charging. He claimed they had offered a substantial price reduction already but then absolutely refused to say what that reduction was.