The Independent Payment Advisory Board

[Maat]

Our government officials are gutting vital services right under our noses. Everyone should be protesting this - peacefully - but vociferously.

*****quote*****
DECEMBER 29, 2010

‘Death Panels’ Come Back to Life
The FDA’s restrictions on the drug Avastin are the beginning of a long slide toward health-care rationing.

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY

Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration banned doctors from prescribing Avastin, a potent but costly drug, to patients with advanced-stage breast cancer. According to the FDA, the drug doesn’t offer “a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients.” Yet in some clinical trials Avastin has halted the spread of patients’ cancer for months, providing respite to women and their families wracked by physical and psychological pain.

Ponder the FDA’s justification—there wasn’t “sufficient” benefit in relation to Avastin’s risks. Sufficient according to whom? For your wife, mother or daughter with terminal breast cancer, how much is an additional month of good-quality life worth? And what costs should be weighed? Like all drugs, Avastin has side effects including bleeding and high blood pressure. But isn’t the real cost to these women a swifter, less dignified death? The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn’t have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.

The Avastin story is emblematic of the government’s broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.

...

He got that wish. ObamaCare created a commission—the Independent Payment Advisory Board—tasked with limiting spending on Medicare. Its recommendations will be binding, unless Congress can come up with equivalent cost-savings of its own. For the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.

Link to source:
http://sroblog.com/2010/12/29/rivkin-foley-death-panels-come-back-to-life-wsj-com/
*****endquote*****

[RandomThoughts]

1. That depends on goals.

If something like health care not based on money was used to hurt people, you would be correct.

It is some influence over an event. Currently money desides health care, if a governmental commission does it. Then they could either use that to help more people or hurt people.

You state they have some control, from that control they will do bad.

If that is the case, it is abuse for something like balancing a budget, that could be achieved by war spending cuts or taxation on unearned wealth.

It could also be that that influence will be used to remove some of those same things done by private sector based on some money situation.

If it is used to hurt, then the problem would be corruption in government, not that they have influence. And from that the government would have to be changed to correct that error.


You are talking about who should have influence, and what they do with it. In a Democracy with good transparency and education, that would lead to better results. In a bad government that would lead to worse results.

However the private sector monopolies are a government also, but that government is bound by a rule to make money for shareholders first, government does not have that restriction. It has the restriction of being elected by the people. So if they fail, it is because the people are not electing them, something like money is, or that the people are not educated enough to understand what they are doing.

However if what they are doing is correct, they should be able to tell the people, and those that think the population is a burden to the planet and a few special people, are not able to argue that, so need secrecy. So with transparency and democracy, and better education, any bad results would be corrected.


If it is used for bad they will build an army against themselves as they hurt much loved innocent people.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Doesn't matter - FDA pulled approval

The drug is no longer approved for use in the USA - see below

[RandomThoughts]

8. Reread my post.

It is not about what they might or might not be doing. I am talking about function not data.

[FreakinDJ]

2. The drug has failed to extend lives in clinical trials

Two years ago the F.D.A., bending over backward to be compassionate, gave Avastin “accelerated approval” for breast cancer treatment based on a single, unimpressive clinical trial. The results showed that Avastin, when added to standard chemotherapy, slowed the progression of the tumors for 5.5 months for the median user but did not extend lives. Two follow-up trials submitted by the manufacturer, Genentech, found tumor progression was held at bay for even shorter periods, from one to three months, and again, lives were not extended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26sun2.html

[jaxx]

4. That appears to be a rightwing site.

I don't know why their talking points would be posted here, but the article is a pot stirrer from the WSJ. Hint: Democrats don't call health care reform "Obamacare".

[Maat]

6. Take a look at the panel ...

and the actions of the panel, and don't worry about the site. Either the author makes a valid point, or not.

[jaxx]

7. The authors make a distorted point. Sites do matter.

<..>The agency’s move has brought protests from some patients who think Avastin is helping them and charges from conservative critics that this is a step toward rationing. If the F.D.A. does rescind its approval, insurers may stop covering the drug for breast cancer. Few patients can afford to pay the exorbitant costs — as high as $88,000 a year — out of pocket.

We believe the F.D.A. has shown courage in following the scientific evidence on this highly emotional issue. Even some advocacy groups for breast cancer patients have applauded the agency’s decision for making clear that the drug does not work very well.

Two years ago the F.D.A., bending over backward to be compassionate, gave Avastin “accelerated approval” for breast cancer treatment based on a single, unimpressive clinical trial. The results showed that Avastin, when added to standard chemotherapy, slowed the progression of the tumors for 5.5 months for the median user but did not extend lives. Two follow-up trials submitted by the manufacturer, Genentech, found tumor progression was held at bay for even shorter periods, from one to three months, and again, lives were not extended.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26sun2.html

[Maat]

9. See my point below (n/t). Please address that point with proper argument.

[FreakinDJ]

11. Moot Point - the Drug is OFF the Market

as in No Longer Available

as in FDA pulled the Temporary Testing Status Approval, and for quite good reasons, as in the drug didn't do what the manufacturer said it would

[FreakinDJ]

10. Yes - I caught that too

Some more "Hit and Run" fun

[Maat]

5. The drug slows tumor growth for months ...

buying time for more successful therapy. We should only ban drugs because of their danger - this drug should be an option for patients in consultation with their medical experts.

I certainly do not want options taken away from patients - unless they are more life-threatening than existing options.