$93,000 cancer drug: How much is a life worth?

Sep 26, 2010 By MARILYNN MARCHIONE , AP Medical Writer

Cancer patients, brace yourselves. Many new drug treatments cost nearly $100,000 a year, sparking fresh debate about how much a few months more of life is worth.

The latest is Provenge, a first-of-a-kind therapy approved in April. It costs $93,000 a year and adds four months' survival, on average, for men with incurable prostate tumors. Bob Svensson is honest about why he got it: insurance paid.

"I would not spend that money," because the benefit doesn't seem worth it, says Svensson, 80, a former corporate finance officer from Bedford, Mass.

His supplemental Medicare plan is paying while the government decides whether basic Medicare will cover Provenge and for whom. The tab for taxpayers could be huge - prostate is the most common in American men. Most of those who have it will be eligible for Medicare, and Provenge will be an option for many late-stage cases. A meeting to consider Medicare coverage is set for Nov. 17.

"I don't know how they're going to deal with that kind of issue," said Svensson, who was treated at the Lahey Clinic Medical Center in suburban Boston. "I feel very lucky."

For the last decade, new cancer-fighting drugs have been topping $5,000 a month. Only a few of these keep cancer in remission so long that they are, in effect, cures. For most people, the drugs may buy a few months or years. Insurers usually pay if Medicare pays. But some people have lifetime caps and more people are uninsured because of job layoffs in the recession. The nation's new health care law eliminates these lifetime limits for plans that were issued or renewed on Sept. 23 or later.

Celgene Corp.'s Revlimid pill for , a type of , can run as much as $10,000 a month; so can Genentech's for certain cancers. Now Dendreon Corp.'s Provenge rockets price into a new orbit.

Unlike drugs that people can try for a month or two and keep using only if they keep responding, Provenge is an all-or-nothing $93,000 gamble. It's a one-time treatment to train the immune system to fight prostate tumors, the first so-called cancer vaccine. Part of why it costs so much is that it's not a pill cranked out in a lab, but a treatment that is individually prepared, using each patient's cells and a protein found on most prostate cancer cells. It is expensive and time-consuming to make.

It's also in short supply, forcing the first rationing of a cancer drug since Taxol and Taxotere were approved 15 years ago. At the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, doctors plan a modified lottery to decide which of its 150 or so eligible patients will be among the two a month it can treat with Provenge. An insurance pre-check is part of the process to ensure they financially qualify for treatment.

"I'm fearful that this will become a drug for people with more resources and less available for people with less resources," said M.D. Anderson's prostate cancer research chief, Dr. Christopher Logothetis.

For other patients on other drugs, money already is affecting care:

- Job losses have led some people to stop taking Gleevec, a $4,500-a-month drug by Novartis AG that keeps certain leukemias and stomach cancers in remission. Three such cases were recently described in the New England Journal of Medicine, and all those patients suffered relapses.

- Retirements are being delayed to preserve insurance coverage of cancer drugs. Holly Reid, 58, an accountant in Novato, Calif., hoped to retire early until she tried cutting back on Gleevec and her cancer recurred. "I'm convinced now I have to take this drug for the rest of my life" and will have to work until eligible for Medicare, she said.

- Lifetime caps on insurance benefits are hitting many patients, and laws are being pushed in dozens of states to get wider coverage of cancer drugs. In Quincy, Mass., 30-year-old grad student Thea Showstack testified for one such law after pharmacists said her first cancer prescription exceeded her student insurance limit. "They said 'OK, that will be $1,900,'" she said. "I was absolutely panicked." The federal health care law forbids such caps on plans issued or renewed Sept. 23 or later.

- Tens of thousands of people are seeking help from drug companies and charities that provide free medicines or cover copays for low-income patients. Genentech's aid to patients has risen in each of the last three years and the company says nearly 85 percent of Americans earn less than $100,000, making them potentially eligible for help if no other programs like Medicaid will pay.

- Doctors and insurers increasingly are doing the cruel math that many cancer patients want to avoid, and questioning how much small improvements in survival are worth. A recent editorial in a medical journal asked whether the extra 11 weeks that Genentech's Herceptin buys for stomach cancer patients justified the $21,500 cost.

Doctors also have questioned the value of Genentech's Tarceva for pancreatic cancer. The $4,000-a-month drug won approval by boosting median survival by a mere 12 days. Here's how to think about this cost: People who added Tarceva to standard chemotherapy lived nearly 6 1/2 months, versus 6 months for those on chemo alone. So the Tarceva folks spent more than $24,000 to get those extra 12 days.

When is a drug considered cost-effective?

The most widely quoted figure is $50,000 for a year of life, "though it has been that for decades - never really adjusted - and not written in stone," said Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a Yale University expert on health care costs.

Many cancer drugs are way over that mark. Estimates of the cost of a year of life gained for lung on Erbitux range from $300,000 to as much as $800,000, said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer.

Higher costs seem to be more accepted for cancer treatment than for other illnesses, but there's no rule on how much is too much, he said.

Insurers usually are the ones to decide, and they typically pay if Medicare pays. Medicare usually pays if the federal Food and Drug Administration has approved the use.

"Insurance sort of isolates you from the cost of health care," and if people lose coverage, they often discover they can't afford their medicines, said Dr. Alan Venook, a cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. He wrote in the New England Journal in August about three of his patients who stopped taking or cut back on Gleevec because of economic hardship.

Two of the three now are getting the drug from its maker, Novartis AG, which like most pharmaceutical companies has a program for low-income patients. About 5,000 patients got help for Gleevec last year, said Novartis spokesman Geoffrey Cook.

"We have seen a steady increase in requests over the past few years" as the economy worsened, he said.

Showstack, whose leukemia was diagnosed last year, gets Gleevec from Novartis. The dose she's on now would cost $50,000 a year.

"I'm not actually sure that I know anyone who could afford it," she said.

Gleevec's cost is easier to justify, many say, because it keeps people alive indefinitely - a virtual cure. About 2,300 Americans died each year of Showstack's form of leukemia before Gleevec came on the market; only 470 did last year.

"I don't think we quibble with a drug that buys people magical quality of life for years," Venook said.

It's unclear whether Provenge will ever do that - it needs to be tested in men with earlier stages of prostate cancer, doctors say. So far, it has only been tried and approved for men with incurable disease who have stopped responding to hormone therapy. On average, it gave them four months more, though for some it extended survival by a year or more.

Until it shows wider promise, enthusiasm will be tepid, said Dr. Elizabeth Plimack a prostate specialist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

"I've not had any patient ask for it," she said. "They ask about it. Based on the information, they think the cost is tremendous, and they think the benefit is very small."

Logothetis, at M.D. Anderson, said Provenge and other experimental cancer vaccines in development need "a national investment" to sort out their potential, starting with Medicare coverage.

"It's no longer a fringe science. This is working," he said. "We need to get it in the door so we can evolve it."

Explore further: Electronic health records tied to shorter time in ER

More information: - Genentech: http://www.GenentechAccessSolutions.com

- Novartis: http://www.patientassistancenow.com

- Patient Advocate Foundation, 800-532-5274 http://www.patientadvocate.org

- CancerCare, 866-552-6729 http://www.cancercarecopay.org

- Chronic Disease Fund, 877-968-7233 http://www.cdfund.org

- Healthwell Foundation, 800-675-8416 http://www.healthwellfoundation.org

- Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, 877-557-2672 http://www.LLS.org/copay

- National Organization for Rare Disorders 800-999-6673 http://www.rarediseases.org

- Patient Access Network Foundation, 866-316-7263 http://www.panfoundation.org

- Patient Advocate Foundation, 866-512-3861 http://www.copays.org

- Patient Services, Inc., 800-366-7741 http://www.patientservicesinc.org

5 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

FDA approves breakthrough cancer therapy Provenge

Apr 29, 2010

(AP) -- A first-of-a-kind prostate cancer treatment that uses the body's immune system to fight the disease received federal approval Thursday, offering an important alternative to more intensive treatments like chemotherapy.

Prostate cancer vaccine extends survival in study

Apr 28, 2009

(AP) -- An experimental treatment added four months to the lives of men with advanced prostate cancer, doctors reported Tuesday in a study that tested an entirely new approach to fighting the disease.

Who gets expensive cancer drugs? A tale of 2 nations

Dec 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 ...

Cancer wins may be bigger than they seem

Jun 09, 2010

(AP) -- Doctors reported gains against nearly every form of cancer at a conference that ended this week. Yet when Will Thomas heard about an advance against prostate cancer, he wanted to know just one thing: "Is it a cure?"

Recommended for you

Electronic health records tied to shorter time in ER

Sep 19, 2014

(HealthDay)—Length of emergency room stay for trauma patients is shorter with the use of electronic health records, according to a study published in the September issue of the Journal of Emergency Nursing.

CDC: Almost everyone needs a flu shot

Sep 19, 2014

(HealthDay)—Less than half of all Americans got a flu shot last year, so U.S. health officials on Thursday urged that everyone 6 months and older get vaccinated for the coming flu season. "It's really unfortunate ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tioedong
4.5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2010
there is a fallacy in this logic.

If a drug adds the average of 4 months, what this means is that in some folks it doesn't work but in others they might live for years.

So stop it where it doesn't work and keep going where it does. In some cancers, biomarkers help to sort out these different groups (and no mention of this either).

Without this last bit of information, the article is useless....
GaryB
3 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2010
Seems to me you could get an idea for how much a year of life is worth to people relative to age by how much they'd be willing to spend on average. Cover that much.
wolfkeeper
not rated yet Sep 27, 2010
Some of the drugs are worth funding even if they're currently too expensive.

The more they're produced the cheaper they get due to economies of scale, and sometimes using two or more different treatments together can have a much greater overall effect than either alone.
Sinister181
Sep 27, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Quantum_Conundrum
not rated yet Sep 27, 2010
I don't understand why the Provenge treatment can't be generalized by simply taking lots of healthy blood from normal blood donors of various blood types, and then performing the procedure on the donor blood and having a "transfusion".
Sinister181
not rated yet Sep 27, 2010
It's just a big money-making scheme.
Pyle
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2010
Most of the high prices for new drugs are the drug companies trying to recoup R&D costs. The US federal government needs to step in and adjust the pricing by leveling the cost across markets. Drug costs in the US shouldn't bankrupt families while the same drug is available elsewhere from the same company for a fraction of the cost.
There needs to be a more rational way to entice drug companies to do research than allowing them to prey upon those in dire need and crippling the economy with unsustainable health care costs.