How do we put a price on life? It is a seemingly impossible question to answer.
But an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal suggests it's a dilemma that policymakers aiming to reform the
The WSJ reports on a study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute citing the high cost of cancer treatments for seriously ill patients. The study authors argue that these therapies are too expensive for the amount of additional time they provide patients, and that spending on such medicines--access to the medicines--should be more tightly controlled.
Oncology is a critical priority for us, an area where we've made major investments in world class researchers, technology and of course the patients we serve. So we obviously have a great interest in this discussion.
There is no question that the price of many cancer therapies can appear to be huge sums. Pricing reflects the substantial investment--and risk taken--in research and development, but also the costs associated with delivering and administering these therapies at treatment centers. (For our part, GSK is committed to ensuring that every cancer patient has access to our medicine through programs like Commitment to Access and others.)
The fact is cancer therapies have evolved from chemotherapy agents to highly targeted medicines that can selectively attack cancer cells. The science is becoming more complex, more personalized, and with that often more expensive. And despite these advanced, targeted therapies, response rates vary. But even if a medicine can't completely eliminate cancer in all patients, shouldn't patients have the opportunity to fight cancer on their terms?
This is a debate that extends well beyond cancer treatments to other areas of healthcare, like diagnostics, complex surgery and hospital care. So...who should tell a patient, "no"?
Leave a comment