Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
11.06.2009 9:03 pm

Costly new drugs: A crisis for one family, a quandry for U.S.

  • Email this
  • Print this
Dan Callahan

Dan Callahan

It began with a little black spot on Dan Callahan’s lower lip. He didn’t think it was anything to worry about. His doctor thought it was cancer.
The doctor was right.
It was neurotropic melanoma, a very rare — and very serious — type of skin cancer. Even after the little black spot was successfully removed six years ago, the cancer remained. And grew.
Last October, doctors at Barnes-Jewish Hospital began chemotherapy. They used a three-drug cocktail that includes Avastin, one of a new generation of anti-cancer drugs. It works by blocking the formation of new blood vessels that feed and nourish tumors. Until just a few years ago, that kind of treatment was the stuff of science fiction.
For patients battling advanced cancer like Mr. Callahan, Avastin represents something as important as food or water: It is time in a vial.
This is what it cost: $13,686 per treatment. Mr. Callahan has received six so far. Total price: $82,116.
What’s it worth? That’s a much more difficult question.

About 10 miles up Illinois Route 13 east of Carbondale, Ill., — just above Crab Orchard Lake — lies a little town called Carterville. Mr. Callahan lives there with his wife, Stacy, and two daughters. Alexa, 18, is a student at the University of Illinois. Carly, 13, is in eighth grade.
You can buy a three-bedroom house in Carterville for about what Mr. Callahan’s six infusions of Avastin cost. For about $100,000 — the price of a year’s treatment — you can get a classic bungalow with a screened-in front porch, a long, shaded driveway and a two-bedroom cottage out back.
The Callahans both have good jobs and health insurance. Stacy works for a credit union. Dan is the head baseball coach at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.
Their insurance paid for minor surgery to remove the little black spot from Mr. Callahan’s lip. It paid for more extensive surgery in April, when doctors removed the right side of his jaw trying to stop the cancer’s spread.
And it paid for yet another operation in September, when infection forced doctors to remove the prosthetic device they had implanted to replace his missing jaw.
But Mr. Callahan’s insurance won’t pay for Avastin.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Avastin in 2004 to treat advanced colon cancer. Since then, it has been cleared for breast and lung cancers. Doctors are free to prescribe it for other forms of cancer. It is being tried on 30 other cancers, including melanoma, but those uses technically are experimental.
Because many experimental treatments don’t pan out, insurance companies in Illinois and most other states do not have to cover them. The major health care bills pending in Congress would not change that. For the first time, they allow generic versions of so-called biologic drugs like Avastin. But only after 12 years on the market, twice as long as other drugs.
For thousands of Americans, including the Callahans, that means many newer cancer drugs are out of reach. “When they told me the insurance wouldn’t cover it, I said we’ll just pay for it ourselves,” Mrs. Callahan recalled last week. “Then they told me how much it cost.”
The Callahans scraped together about $27,000 from friends and family members — enough to cover the cost of two treatments. They got a grant from Washington University to pay for four more. They are appealing the insurance company denial, so far without success. The grant expires at the end of December. After that?
Mrs. Callahan paused. “We don’t know what we’ll do.”

Despite the high prices and higher hopes, Avastin has been shown to extend cancer patients’ lives by only a few months. Many patients and oncologists say it improves quality of life and shrinks tumors — or at least prevents them from growing. Mr. Callahan’s doctor said it has slowed the progression of his tumor.
That is no small achievement for patients with advanced cancer. But stopping the progression of cancer is not the same as curing it. A study published in January followed 53 melanoma patients who received Avastin. After 18 months, 13 were alive.
The company that makes Avastin, Genentech, spent about $2.25 billion to develop it. It spends another $1 billion a year testing it on new cancers. Avastin has been a blockbuster success. It had $2.7 billion in sales in the United States last year and more than $3.5 billion worldwide.
Genentech says Avastin’s price reflects its value. Another cancer drug, Erbitus, costs even more, and it hasn’t been shown to extend life at all. In March, Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche agreed to buy Genentech for $46.8 billion. Avastin is a big reason the company was sold for so much money.
Not everyone agrees that Avastin is worth the price. Experts in Britain recommended against making it widely available. covering it. A drug that costs as much as a house and extends life for just a few months isn’t worth the money, they said.

Some people go to pieces when they find out they’ve got cancer. Mr. Callahan went to work.
He has coached the Salukis for 14 years. “I try to carry on like I’m going to be here next week and next month,” he said. “I think about coaching in 2010, about going to my daughters’ college graduations and their weddings.”
His 2009 team finished with 24 wins and 28 losses. Coach Callahan was too sick to travel to away games. But he was in the dugout each time the Salukis took the field in Carbondale.
From the beginning, the Callahans have made it a point not to ask doctors about his prognosis. “We don’t want to know it, and we don’t want our kids to know it,” Mrs. Callahan said. “We just wanted to live our lives as normally as possible, with no time line.”
Coach Callahan thinks it is inherently unfair that patients can be denied treatment simply because of a drug’s high price. It’s like giving one team an extra at-bat.
But the game is not over. Even with two outs in the ninth inning, even with two strikes against you, there’s hope. And a question: Who sets the price of victory?

 

This posting has been revised to clarify imprecise language.

21 comments

Comments are closed.

Dear editor
Thsi story is very heart touching. Ths story tells how much companies are self centered ? They always thinik about their profit and try to justify their product cost. I believe This story should read by supporters of 12 years drug exclusivity.

I can only do one thing to pray to god to provide support to Mr. Callahan for further funding.

— ashutosh
11:58 pm November 6th, 2009

Stories such as this shows us why there should not even exist for profit healthcare companies and why all our citizens should be placed in one gigantic risk pool to cover one another’s back in cases of illnesses because we are called to be our brothers keeper, that is truly how it should be concerning our health and well-being in the best interests of all as a whole.

— D. Walker
8:21 am November 7th, 2009

This is a touching story, to be sure. But you don’t make policy based upon touching stories, you make it based upon facts. Your own editorial states that “Avastin has been shown to extend cancer patients’ lives by only a few months.” Yet each treatment costs enough to provide health insurance for a dozen young people for an entire year. In the world of private insurance, they may deny it because it is experimental. In the world of publicly funded healthcare, they will deny it because it is expensive, and because the private result does not justify the public cost.

It’s easy to say that insurance companies are selfish for denying this coverage. Of course, the same people would also say that insurance companies are wrong for hiking premiums to cover the cost of such expensive treatments. And they say we should snatch these proprietary drugs away from the companies who bore the cost of research and production, and let anyone produce generic versions to sell at pennies on the dollar. Would they say we should do the same with Michael Jackson songs or Colonel Sanders’ secret recipe? Of course, they’re fine with the government hiking taxes to pay for it - just so long as the tax burden falls on “somebody else.”

— Nick Kasoff
9:07 am November 7th, 2009

There is a problem with linking the medical arts to economic or business science. The medical arts have been governed for many years by the saying first do no harm. Simple and effective. Lately supposed Americans keep linking medical arts to economy or business as you may. One of the problems is that economics deals with scarcity. In the case mentioned there is no real scarcity the drugs exist a plenty its just that some people want more than the market will bear for them. If the market will not bear the cost it is not functioning. Business also exists to earn money for owners simple and effective. Yet it is not functioning when it comes to the needs of the disenfranchised. Another problem is that the Coach in mind does nothing to add to the economy he is an entertainer simple and effective. Entertainers do nothing to add to the real economy they offer a social benefit entertainment. So why should he be given anything for free other than it is the decent thing to do to save his life. First do no harm simple and effective. Entertainers often earn a fortune and live lavish lifestyles yet they contribute nothing to the real economy. They offer a social benefit entertainment while those that contribute much in real terms gain very little if at all. So how do those that really contribute get medical care if it is linked to business. They often have nothing to offer in trade? The saying first do no harm should apply and harm can take the form of neglect.

— Michael Mullarkey
9:37 am November 7th, 2009

If companies are not allowed to make a profit, they would not even exist. The companies are not “self centered”, they are offering a service. Is 12 year patent protection too long…probably. However, the money they make during that time allows them to work on R&D on new drugs and trials to prove the efficacy of their current drugs in treating other conditions. This story is sad and I’m sure my tune would change if I were in a similar situation; however, not allowing a company to profit would only hurt everyone in the long run. Capitalism has made this country what it is today which is still the greatest country in the world. The scariest thing to me right now is the notion that profit is bad. In fact, profit is the greatest motivator and the best driver of innovation which is what makes us great.

— jimothy68
11:33 am November 7th, 2009

Where do people think these drugs come from, thin air? It takes enormous amounts of money to develop, test, manufacture a drug. There is an alternative to spending money on a medication. You can spend money on a funeral instead. Which is the likelihood if the private sector can’t develop medications at a reasonable profit.

— jdg
11:49 am November 7th, 2009

jimothy68,

Certain services provided by entities such as health insurance companies, should not be for-profit.

— D. Walker
12:47 pm November 7th, 2009

You know, sometimes it’s just your time to go. No amount of money is going to change that fact. Some people think we can extract enough money from one group of people and throw it at life’s problems so we all get to live forever. It’s just not that way.

Tell me D. Walker, if you had a company that developed a drug that would allow everyone with every type of illness to live forever, what would you charge for it?

— AJ
1:14 pm November 7th, 2009

Drug companies provides a valuable product(COMMODITY). Can you NOT see that insurance companies DO NOT?

— D. Walker
3:54 pm November 7th, 2009

AJ,

Why would you dare even compare a drug manufacturer to an insurance company anyhow? Drug companies provide valuable life saving products to human beings. Those life saving products required and requires much money to develop. Do you even understand what an insurance company is?

— D. Walker
4:01 pm November 7th, 2009

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All