You are here

High cost cancer drugs- the argument goes on

This is obviously a complex issue, and the argument about how much profit a company makes is 'too much' opens what must be a valid discussion. In my view, if you take the position that 'blockbuster' drugs like Glivec and the other 2nd generation TKIs - much like the goose that lays the golden egg- allow the profit made to turn into 'profiteering' at the expense of cancer patients, then you must include all the other interested parties that also make profit from disease.
I am glad to see the call for an open discussion- see Prof. Goldman's comment in this article. The cost of healthcare (or disease care) is and will continue to increase over this and the next decades and we all need to understand why this is and how we can cope with it.

http://www.leuka.org.uk/featured-article-from-the-new-york-times/

Thanks for posting this Sandy - an open discussion about healthcare costs, especially cancer therapy, is absolutely necessary. It's certainly not as simple as the tabloids would have one believe that drug profits are by definition too high - profits pay both for past research and, more importantly (and usually forgotten), future research. For every drug that comes to market, hundreds or thousands fail. On the other hand, drug companies are commercial organisations with shareholders (including indirectly those with a private pension) as well as thousands of employees. They are an important part of the economies of many major countries. They are also a major cost centre for those economies.... The eternal difficulty is "how much is enough" to meet all these needs and demands, and to create the new medicines we need, without encouraging profiteering in particular on relatively ineffective drugs. Very very complex - but for sure, if we are going to provide the standard of care we are potentially capable of (especially in cancer) at a price we can afford, someone really does have to grasp this nettle once and for all....