"The treatment was originally developed at the National Cancer Institute, by a team Dr. Steven Rosenberg led. The institute entered an agreement with Kite in 2012, in which the company helped pay for research and received rights to commercialize the results."
A critical side story here is, how much of the tax funded National Cancer Institute Research that led to the breakthrough therapy did Kite actually "help to pay for? 5%, 20% 50%?? Seriously.
Since the breakthrough discoveries happened at the taxpayer funded NCI, (its infrastructure: labs, staff, reagents, equipment etc.), tax payers should receive profits equal to their contribution. But, alas - no. Instead, the fruits of our investment are sledded to a private pharmaceutical company to enrich the few at the misery and expense of those who actually paid for the work.
I bet if the Times looked they would find former tax payer NCI governments scientists who worked on the project as part owners of "Kite".
13
This is an amazing step in the journey from classical cancer therapies that kill all frequently dividing cells in the hope if killing the cancer cells, towards targeted therapies that attack the genetics or the cellular pathways that support the cancer cells, or use a patient’s own immune system against the cancer cells.
While this particular therapy is for those who have failed standard chemotherapy, the hope is that in the future the targeted therapies will slowly render the “shotgun” therapies that attack all dividing cells a thing of the past. While the cost of treating a patient with targeted therapies sounds prohibitive, one has to remember that standard chemotherapy is also expensive and one often has to undergo several courses of chemotherapy in an effort to irradicate the cancer. Furthermore, chemotherapy leads to many complications, including severe infections because of low white cell counts that can be very expensive to treat and require long hospitalizations and even visits to the intensive care unit. The cost of targeted therapies may not seem high when compared to the cost of several courses of classical chemotherapy.
1
Articles like this always highlight the cost of the new drugs. But how does this compare to the cost of the existing treatments? Does the new treatment regimen take less time? Are the outcomes better? I agree that the "publicly funded - privately monetized" model is bad policy.
1
Another government giveaway to Wall Street....... I feel oh so confident in our leaders.
Perhaps Mr T will use his world renowned negotiating skills to cut the US taxpayer a break. Or not.
2
"Kite... helped to pay for research and received rights... " to eventually gouge us and make enormous profits for a handful of people. How much did the taxpayers invest?
5
Yes, and the federal government should receive royalties for any technological and pharmaceutical R and D that originated in the NIH and those royalties should correlate with company net profits.
2
We're living thru a medical revolution. This is wonderful. I signed up for online Biology course with MIT just to understand this. Book recommendation: "The Emperor of All Maladies, A Biography of Cancer" by Siddhartha Mukerjee. So many admirable scientists struggling against this scourge on mankind.
8
The good news is that we may eventually have a CURE for CANCER...
The bad news is that only Trump and his billionaire buddies can afford it.
11
You hit the nail ON the head.
American taxpayers funded this,
and the rich will thrive because of it—-
Welcome to 1984——kd
2
The taxpayer helped develop this therapy. Now, private industry takes over and rapes the taxpayer/patient, bankrupting most comers. This is our warped, Capitalist system of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
7
My dear love, Paul, died from a form of b-cell non Hodgkin lymphoma at Stanford Hospital in 2009. After two years and 4 rounds of chemo, 4 experimental trial drugs, and 40 rounds of radiation, he died at 60 years old. Although many PET scans would come back cancer-free, the so-called "mother" cell in his lymphatic system kept resurrecting. Because he had diabetes, he was not a candidate for stem cell, which was a possible option for some in his group.
This revved up T-cell sounds like the break through. Of course, cost is prohibitive, but that will change in time.
6
Other countries have been using gene therapy,why haven't we? Because there isn't as much money in it!!!
Now we have a NEW class of treatment ,gene therapy in USA and no stated cost?
I wonder how long this will be dragged out and how many will die before being
Able to pay the horrendous cost.
Our stem cells can go to any part of the body without being genetically altered.
So we the citizens pay for the development of these technologies via the NIH, and then we let private drug companies buy the rights, and also charge $500,000 per treatment? What a scam!! I wonder how Trump care will cover these types of treatments??
5
You are middle class,
So too bad for you——
Signed—-D. tRump
1
This treatment was developed at taxpayer expense at the National Cancer Institute. Then, in return for an amount the article didn't specify from Kite, a private company, the government allowed Kite to sell this government created treatment at whatever cost Kite wants, as of now $373,000. On the basis of such a lavish return, the article says Gilead purchased Kite for $11.9 billion.
If Trump really wants to run our government 'like a business' then he would ask for an increase rather than decrease in government spending on research large enough to pay all the costs of developing and testing the drugs developed in government labs. Since most of the cost of such drugs are paid, one way or the other, by the Federal government, it then could distribute the drugs for free and would come out ahead. Alternately, the government itself could sell the drugs to itself and private insurers for the same obscene amounts private firms realize and in that way create fund to finance future research.
The current system I don't think stems from extreme stupidity on the part of government officials. Rather, it is a reflex belief that only private for-profit firms delve the right to sell anything and everything, including research produced n government labs.
6
Is this the same NIH that our tax money supports. These people are outrageous at $373,000. The same deal as Burrough Welcome years ago. The taxpayer pays again and again. They should find somebody else's money to steal!!!
3
A lot of commenters seem to be trying to justify the prices of these kinds of treatments. The truth is, we have no way of knowing what a "reasonable" profit for this would be. There are too many factors that we just don't know enough about, though the pharmaceutical companies like to pretend they are operating on the edge of poverty. I recently found out that one of my high school classmates, who made his money in pharmaceuticals and medical devices, purchased a $17 million dollar house. And no, his family isn't rich. The pharmaceutical industry has a great deal of control over people's lives - including who will live and who will die. We need more transparency. Maybe in the next administration, we can get it.
4
This is a good first step. DNA/RNA therapy to make cancer cells into foreign bodies, "invaders" recognized by the body's immune system, will revolutionize cancer treatment in the next 10 years. However, who can afford $400,000 other than the very wealthy and well insured? The greed of the medical industry is beyond immoral.
2
Having lost two people I loved most in world to cancer, this is the best news after watching their doctors peddle chemotherapy, cruel drugs that practically killed them and did nothing to the cancer. The price for this new therapy is absurd, and only those lucky enough to have high coverage will have access to the chance to live. There has to be a better way and the Cancer Institute has to make affordability a priority along with the prevention and cure.
So now we have a drug that will only be available to those an afford health Insurance or pay out of pocket for these astronomical prices.
Granted we can put NO PRICE on life, but the insurance companies, hospitals, and others will deem if you are WORTHY of saving... and I suspect it won't be the poor, sick or elderly now that many of us no longer have access to affordable medical insurance (ACA) thanks to Trump's EO slashing the extension of medicaid to the working poor.
America is long past due for single payer health care!
4
$373,000 for the one treatment? Which insurance companies will cover this? The normal, middle class American, would be bankrupted by this treatment.
4
I have Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma, ALK ve. And it hasn't responded to standard chemotherapy regimes. Has relapsed over and over, and is aggressive.
Although completely unaffordable for me (and the side effects sound foreboding), I wonder if this treatment would work for me. Why I wonder is, maybe someday it'll become affordable...
By the way, currently I am on fortnightly doses of Vinblastine (generic, so very cheap) -- 8mg. I am even able to work from home with this format.
Why am I sharing disease and treatment details at this length? So that maybe it'll help somebody out there like me who can discuss with their oncologist --- you or maybe someone you know with whom you'll share.
6
Thanks for sharing your story. Your type of lymphoma may be eligible for a clinical trial. See clinicaltrials.gov and search using CAR T.
1
The real question is how much is it going to cost the average person is it going to be like Martin life saving epipen outrageous cost.
When it comes a nation born as an oligarchy - a republic that pretends to be democracy- all our systems relevant to food, medicine, education, religion, academia, and security, are ALL designed to benefit oligarchical power at the expense of the masses- a truth denied only by the falsity that hides it!
It is really sickening that we have essentially outlawed Nature's own mechanisms for well being, disease prevention, and cure for a Man made pretension that amounts to genocide for profits. For gene therapy is essentially the treatment of the "possibility" of disease based on the library of human genetic expressions that represent the totality of ALL genetic expressions from the beginning of homo sapiens. Yes, these predispositions have the potential to come into play. However, and more importantly, it is the environment, via food, air and water, that unlocks the key to their expressions! It is the environment that has become the nursery for the genesis of these "new" and ever morphing diseases that we have decided to treat via their infinite pathways rather than their root cause visa-vis the environment. Thus, it is our applications in Nature that make us sick! But obviously, money and the exercise of transitory power is to be protected and exalted until our last breath.
We need to hear more about how many of these patients suffer from heart problems in the years after treatment. And we need some longitudinal survival and disease studies. Killing stuff isn't really the hard part. The hard part is doing it without killing or damaging other stuff.
2
As some others have noted, we should all be advocating loudly and persistently for a very robust budget for NIH and, specifically, government-funded cancer research. There are some cancers, like pancreatic, that are still short-term death sentences. The government needs to fund more basic and translational research. But this is good news.
4
Why?
So they can seel it to the highest bidder and shaft the middle class,
Over and over and over again, in the name of Corporate Profit?
Make no mistake: ALL of the advances made by pharmaceutical companies stand squarely on the shoulders of publicly funded research. This is regardless of "agreements" entered into with universities, the national cancer institute, patent law, and the like. Simply put, there would be no progress in any medical area without taxpayer funded research. And now the treatment (developed because of american taxpayer investment) may be marketed in Europe. The big question will be: what price gouging will they be able to get away with in Europe? Once again, I suspect that enormous prices in the US will subsidize reduced prices in Europe.
8
My mother died on her birthday at 71 of Non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Under care of the Cleveland Clinic she lived 12 years with the disease and saw all her grandchildren born. I would have gladly paid a million for her to see her great grandchildren.
I (and my daughter) have been living with the threat of this disease over our heads. I have a "worry space" in my life for both of us. We have rheumatoid arthritis and take Enbril and Remicade, immune system suppressors. This makes us doubly susceptible to NHL. This news makes my worry space much smaller! I hope I will have a chance to see my great grandchildren!!
6
As a cancer survivor I know what my successful treatment cost and what the treatment for people who die of cancer costs.
One year of standard treatment can easily cost $200K or $300K. I reached my out of pocket max of $3,500 by mid day of January 3rd when I was going through treatment.
At the end of life treatment can get much more expensive.
When you consider that many people getting this treatment will be young and not elderly. The costs seems much more reasonable.
10
So who owns the patents?
2
That does not matter, the ONLY thing that matters is
Corporate Profit.
If I promise an insurance company that I will NOT request these expensive drugs when I get cancer, and will just die quickly and quietly, can I get a discount on my premium?
4
My bother at age 46 was diagnosed with this terrible disease. He had two young children at the time. Fortunately he had a wonderful doctor and decent insurance and the chemo worked. It was still very expensive and his out of pocket expenses were tens of thousands of dollars. Unlike many he had the resources to pay those expenses. We are eternally grateful for his life and the the gift he received of raising his children. If you walked a mile in my brother’s shoes you might reconsider that request for a premium discount.
4
If you don't intend to get any health care, why pay for insurance at all?
I think it is better not to suggest the insured are taking advantage of insurance companies, who seem to be financially stronger than most Americans.
Yes of course Bernadette in Las Cruces, if I had his life, it would be different. But that's not the life I have. The life I have is not the kind of life where I want to prolong the agony any further than I already have to do.
I am pro-choice. You and your brother want to live as long as you possibly can, fine. But let people like me exit as soon as possible. We don't have your privileges and advantages so please recognize we are not equal in this situation....
3
The initial cost of almost every new drug is expensive. Don't worry too much, the prices will come down. Science and engineering will see to it. America, wake up! We need to interest our kids in STEM careers. Individualized medication is the future. You ain't seen nothing, yet.
5
Rituxan was $13,000 in 2002 and our insurance was billed $15,670 just last month for the same drug.
...not to disagree with your enthusiasm for STEM accomplishments, which of course include Rituxan.
2
Just like my Levothyroxin RX that just took an 80% increase in price.
It would be interesting to know what happens to the revenues from these new treatments. People seem to have the feeling that stockholders receive a huge check in the mail and proceed to buy a second Porsche. I doubt it. I think that a lot of it goes into developing new therapies. It probably depends on what kind of company it is. A cutting edge biotech company may use revenue to invest heavily in research, while big pharma is more likely to raise prices on old drugs without adding value. People should be aware of this distinction.
3
There is a lot of discussion about the cost, but I think it is, unfortunately, in line with other cancer treatment. My husband underwent a stem cell transplant for his Stage 4, highly aggressive diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma two years ago and is in complete remission. The American Cancer Society says the cost of a stem cell transplant is between $350,000 to $800,000. I thank God every day for my husband's health. We were fortunate to have good insurance through his employer and excellent medical care. I wish all Americans had the same access to health care that we did. We know how lucky we are.
12
I know I live in South Africa, where the currency requires almost 14 units to buy a single dollar - and the cost of the treatment would be well beyond what most earn in a lifetime, or several lifetimes - but surely even in US terms, $475000 is frightening amount of money - I'm curious to know from US readers how people could actually afford this, even with some form of health insurance. Or is it only the rich that get access to life saving drugs?
5
My first year of cancer treatment in the US was listed as costing approximately $350,000. My health insurance, which I had through my employer, paid for it. I also have unusually good health insurance. My contribution was capped at $1000. However, health insurance companies are able to get steep discounts - so I have no idea how much it actually cost them. The discounts are actually the reason more and more health providers are refusing to take insurance - they are unwilling to take what the insurance companies are willing to pay. So there is no simple answer to your question.
1
Well Peter, like anything else you hope that as it becomes more widespread that cost will come down. The important thing is that it apparently works.
1
Insurance pays for it. Fortunately these cancers are rare. If only 1 person in 10,000 gets it, everybody has to chip in $47.50 to save the guy's life.
It helps to remember that the people who paid but got nothing in return are the *lucky* ones. They guy who got the $475,000 benefit was the poor slob who got sick. (even when the bills are paid by someone else, fighting cancer is not fun)
1
Doesn't sound like many Mother Teresa's working for Big Pharma, does it. Getting rich chemically infusing me with something for my cancer so I can give all my money to them instead of my grand-kids sounds like quite a business model. Given the choice between a Ferrari and having to spend a little more time with an old man, I'm sure my grandson would rather pick the former if his mom would let him. And I don't blame him.
6
How you do expect this kind of research and production to get paid for? It takes decades of expenditure with no return. Eventually when something works you want it to be free? Why would anyone undertake the expense? And be what, unable to pay employees in the lab?
6
You pay for these research drug by making the RICH PAY MORE!
They can afford it-
Including my mother's passing (from surgical complications many years later, not cancer); I believe the worst day of my life (she kept the "Worst Case Scenario" from us) was when I had to drop by the hospital to pick up my mother from her "Out Patient Lump Removal" Surgery. She didn't even hint to us the severity probabilities, bless her heart:).
The Family Doctor met me and my sister in the hallway (I was about 25, she was about 35); "MarkAntney, she has stay longer, for we had to do a full mastectomy."
My sister took off running down the corridor hollering and crying and I dropped to my knee.
My other sisters and brother were in the military stationed elsewhere and I can't explain my anger when the very helpful folks at Red Cross was assisting me in contacting them to come home (if they could).
And what adds to this HORRIBLE, saga (crying as I remember) lady with RCross tells me (Apparently, she could see my anger?);
"MarkAntney, it's OK to be angry, my son was, my husband was, I still am when I had a double mastectomy."
Oh, rightfully the Doctor tells me (earlier as I was kneeling), "Get up, what do you think your mother is going through?"
And that nice lady also told me; "MarkAntney, try not show your anger around your mother. She will feel bad enough as it is and she'll need you and the rest of your family to get through this."
Be it Special Olympics and Cancer Research, frequently I donated $$s but once it hit home, made it personal.
4
Too bad if you need it unless you are very wealthy.
7
On a schoolteacher's salary, where did the $370,000 come from?
4
Who can pay $373,000 for this new promising lymphoma drug?
6
Great news if you can afford the treatment. Too bad most people can't.
5
"The treatment was originally developed at the National Cancer Institute, by a team Dr. Steven Rosenberg led. The institute entered an agreement with Kite in 2012, in which the company helped pay for research and received rights to commercialize the results."
The same National Cancer Institute whose funding is being cut in the proposed Trump budget?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/22/trump-b...
What is wrong with this picture?
10
What’s wrong with this picture is that the Trump administration and the GOP Congress really don’t want anything developed by an arm of the government for the benefit of the people. They want corporations to be able to profit from everything.
And there you have it.
1
My daughter is a biostatistician in a biogenetics firm. My son is in tech. There are a great deal of similarities in the two industries. Lots of start-ups with fortunes made in a short time. Lots of money people funding the start-ups. And lots of shenanigans -- my daughter's company manipulated its stock price to undervalue employee stock options by more than $1 million. There are more women in biogenetics than tech, but the pay in both is great as are the benefits (except for manipulated stock options), there's nobody over 40 in the room, and the jobs are not easy to come by. At any rate, don't get the idea that new cures for cancer come from selfless researchers out to save the world. Your cure probably comes from a bunch of young tech types watching their 401(k)'s.
6
How do you think these cures even make it to biotech in the first place? From the culmination of years of work from researchers, mostly in academia.
7
And you would prefer that nobody have an interest in doing this at all? Most advances come from some kind of expectations from a business model, whether it's biopharma or electric cars or smartphones, or even fluoride in toothpaste. If you turn that off, the innovation stops.
2
CURE. Think about it. Cure. The cost of current treatments for cancer and other diseases over the life of the patient dwarfs the cost of these new cures. We give $40m to retain a wide reciever, $22m to hire an actor, $2b to build an aircraft carrier, yet we scream bloody murder at the initial cost of a life altering miracle.
21
Thanks for pointing out the insanity of our priorities. Someone wise once said
"Show me your budget and I will show you your morals"
It is immoral that we complain about the cost of life saving treatments but think professional athletes are worth $40,000,000 per year.
3
this drug was approved so that Dr. Steve Rosenberg, in the twilight years of his admirable, half century commitment to immunotherapy, had an FDA approval to his name. Trust me, Ive worked with these guys.
4
My father's life was greatly extended by a non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma treatment pioneer, Dr. Saul Rosenberg of Stanford. Does anyone know if Dr. Steve and Dr. Saul are brothers?
In 2001 my best friend died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
As he lay dying after unsuccessful, massive chemotherapy that bloated his body and disintegrated his spine, he was asked if he wanted to participate in a new study involving immunotherapy. His T-cells were extracted and then his immune system was killed. Following that, his own T-cells were re-injected. It didn't work, but I honor him as a treatment pioneer who paved the way for a now much more successful procedure. Thank you, Bruce.
43
At a cost of $373,000 with 3,500 patients who could use this treatment that comes out to a total of 1.2 TRILLION Dollars if we were to treat all of them. Where is money supposed to come from?
5
1.3 billion, I think you'll find. And costs tend to go down the further into a drug's lifecycle you go.
1
It's also true that not everyone can own a Mercedes Benz. Maybe we should outlaw them to eliminate that inequality.
6
How about redoing your math? The cost is $1.3 billion.
3
That some types of cancer are being driven into complete remission by this therapy is a reason to rejoice. That said, the staggering costs to be borne by individuals, the government, and anyone who pays a health insurance premium cast a shadow over the achievement.
I am left wondering why the National Cancer Institute, a government agency, has to rely on Kite Pharma, a private for-profit business, to get enough money to complete its research. Likewise, Kite now has the commercial rights and all of the profits that may entail.
I have a lot of questions. Is the public the greatest beneficiary of publicly-funded research? Or is it a profit-making entity? Does $373,000 reflect the costs of developing, manufacturing, and administering the treatment – plus a fair profit? Or are some shareholders enjoying 100% profit margins from a business built on a foundation of taxpayer-funded research?
27
Immunology, using the cancer patient's own immune systen to kill the cancer cells is the way to cure cancer. If big pharma can't make billions on a therapy it won't happen, even though a lot of research leading to cures is publicaly funded.
There is a physician in Tijuana working with an immunologist to make vaccines for each patient using cells from the patient's own tumor. Our immune systems can kill cancer if they can detect the cancer cells which cloak themselves to hide. It is not necessary to genetically alter the patient's cells and I'm sure that's where the side effects come from. And this doesn't cost a fortune, was around $50,000 for 6 weeks of treatment.
27 years too late
My sister died of large celled lymphoma in 1990. She was 28 years old
She never smoked, rarely drank, never did drugs, had no allergies and was not overweight. No chronic conditions - just unlucky
This is expensive but if it works it will be worth it. There is not a day that goes by that I don't wish she was here.
36
We are ALL unlucky-
Look who our leader is—-
The most useful therapies for cancer will never be successful if each treatment is in effect, a GMP manufacturing process by a single "manufacturing" laboratory resulting in the treatment of a single patient. That is why it is so expensive and out of reach of all but the wealthiest among us.
I suspect that methods will be developed to make preparation of these ultra-specific bio-drugs more automated and reproducible like autologous blood transfusions. In the meantime, the vast majority of cancer patients who need a treatment like this can only hope and pray for realistic access.
10
I have follicular non hodgkin's lymphoma. There is no way that I could afford this new treatment. My future is palliative care. Now if this country had a "Medicare For All", National; Health Insurance, that would not be the case. It is also interesting that this treatment was developed by tax payers money but how many tax payers will really benefit from this discovery?
for all, national health insurance, that would not be the case..
41
How can you be sure it would even be offered? If the government decided the cost was too much and did not cover it, then it wouldn't make a difference.
5
ABSOLUTELY. The major outlay for this treatment was funded by U.S. taxpayers. Due to cuts in funding, most likely, the research can’t make it over the finish line and guess who benefits? Billionaires. It’s obscene.
6
That’s not necessarily true. The very expensive treatment I’m on for my rare cancer is not available in at least some countries with national health insurance. Patients in the UK and Australia are given an older treatment with more side effects. Patients in France only receive one year of maintenance chemotherapy, while my US doctor wants me on it for life. All health care systems involve some kind of rationing. The US rations by money. Fortunately for me, I have great health insurance. It’s a terrible situation for people who don’t.
1
An impressive step in immunotherapy
which gives promise to genetic engineering
successfully attacking cancer cells.
Denise Grady's articles are consistently good
sources of information in scientific advances.
The people involved in this effort, Dr. Locke,
the NCI, Kite Pharma, and the patients who
entered trials, are to be commended. Reminds
us of how critical it is to support scientific research
with our tax funds and private philanthropy....
6
The cost-per-use of the drug is so expensive because the relatively few people who need it are the primary funding behind its research and development.
Medical research is overall a public good. The sick should not have to pay this much for their own treatment when they are most in need. The burden should be shared by the public.
Of course, profit margins for the drug company factor into it as well. Maybe for-profit healthcare isn't such a good idea to begin with.
16
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma is not remotely uncommon.
People with the money to pay for this treatment are.
4
I read an Oncologists book with a chapter on Immunotherapy . It's great that it's working with some of these blood diseases. Yes, the cost is stupendous but perhaps there are some foundations that will help - so go for treatment!
6
New wonder drugs that will cure cancer but cost more than all but the top 1% can afford. Collectively as a nation we could afford to pay for this if we changed our priorities. Trump et al want to pour trillions into military adventures around the world. We wouldn't need military adventures if American hegemony were in fighting disease instead of politics.
25
Most, if not all, of us have lost family and friends to cancer. Perhaps, we are finally turning the corner in coming up with treatments that actually cure cancer without the destruction that is done with the current treatments of chemo and radiation.
With oncologists talking about financial toxicity with regard to the cost of cancer treatment, we need an honest discuss of how costs are going to be driven down in our entire healthcare system.
23
Gilead didn't purchase Kite Pharma for $11.9 billion so that it could take the lead in trying to drive down costs.
2
Of course not, but that's not the point.
"This is the beginning of many developments in cell therapy in the next few years,” Dr. Chang said in an interview." But at at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per treatment. With the current state of health insurance in the U.S., is cell therapy an advancement for the 'haves' but not the 'have nots'? Medical advances don't mean much to people who can't afford them.
95
@Steve M.
I agree with you and might I add that despite FDA approval of such treatments, most insurance will not provide coverage because the insurers consider the procedures experimental, investigatory, and unproven, which is especially true of such gene therapies and genomic profiling of tumors to determine cause and set a course of treatment.
16
This is especially pronounced when the Republican Congress is trying to cut Medicaid and especially the Childrens Health Insurance Plan. People don't seem to realize that luck and other factors play into "the haves" and it is not a character deficit that people lack access to health care.
23
Many treatments start expensive and become much cheaper rapidly. I’m bothered by the price tag but have some confidence we’ll see rapid price drops.
3
As regards patients who have been successfully treated, I'm wondering who paid for it?
7
It’s a pretty great day when I wake up in the middle of the night for my review of the NYT and read about a miracle cure for the exact type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) I was treated for 10.5 years ago. I’ve been in remission since 2006, when I had CHOP-R chemotherapy using the then-revolutionary monoclonal antibody Rituximab (Rituxan).
While I was lucky to catch NHL at an early stage and luckier to benefit from a disease with cutting edge treatment advances coupled with a fantastic oncologist, those in remission with NHL are always looking over their shoulder watchfully waiting for the return of the disease.
But what makes me happiest is that countless millions with different untreatable cancers will one day be able to experience that same feeling of hope and relief I felt as the sun rose on the very day I go in for a semi-annual checkup on my NHL remission status.
65
how much profit is too much? Dare we taxpayers ask that question after funding much of this research? $400000+ per treatment? Yet millions are about to lose ACA coverage. Sarah Palin's death panels, anyone?
43
Not that I think it adds up to $400,000, but unlike many other treatments, this is not a drug. That cost includes the cost of actually having trained staff and the facility to perform the gene therapy. Once the hospital removes the blood from the patient, it has to be sent to Kite Pharma to be genetically engineered. So in a sense, this sort of therapy was always going to be more expensive than a new drug formulation would be.
1
I’m not an expert on this but my boss’s wife just went through chemo and I believe each infusion was somewhere between 10,000-20,000. 373,000 might not be that far off from a couple rounds of chemo, and when the chemo hasn’t worked that starts to look pretty good.
1
It's not affordable for most. Excuse me if I'm not overjoyed by the news.
30
You should be. No future affordable treatment scenarios don’t start out of reach like this one. Where reasonably priced cures are 100 yards away, we’re on the one foot line. At least we are there. If there were only one airplane, how much would it cost to fly?
2
This is wonderful news. But if the treatment was originally developed with our tax dollars at the National Cancer Institute, why is the treatment's cost $373,000? Can we expect Trump's "wonderful" low cost insurance plans to cover that little nugget? Can we expect the NIH or National Cancer Institute to continue to develop cutting-edge treatments with the draconian cuts in their funding proposed by this administration?
96
Great news!
6
Pretty amazing, hope for so many, but the cost!
8
Such an exciting time to be an oncologist... advancing science/medicine and bringing new hope for patients and their loved ones.
16
Perhaps some facts sure be in this article ". In some cases the treatments have led to long remissions." is that 1In a 1000 or many more. Was this a RCT or not I doubt it....and minus the bad effects caused by this drug where any lifes saved???
1
It said 40% were in complete remission at the 9 month follow up.
And the remission period has been months, not years. A remission of 5 years in cancer parlance is considered a cure. It is too early to tell.
Did you read the article? At the end a woman was interviewed who's life was saved.
For years after the human genome was done, people were saying "you haven't cured cancer yet!1!". But these things take time to bubble through the research and testing.
But we are seeing it now. I hope people will remember that the foundation we created with basic research was necessary, but not sufficient, to get us to this point.
And when this administration tries to cut basic research, make noise.
63
This is not a cure. This is palliative care. Not a single one of those research subjects was cured.
God Bless Dr. Steven Rosenberg and all the researchers!
****A Connecticut physician
23
This is hopeful news. But, if this country would de-schedule cannabis and exhaustively research its medicinal powers (thank you Germany, Israel), we just might find something very effective and natural at our disposal. Or we can continue the plant's useless demonization and keep research quelled, thereby denying treatment to those in need.
9
I have yet to see any substantive research claiming that cannabis has cured cancer. It hasn't.
3
@Suzanne,
I oppose the use of marijuana for any reason. I believe that using marijuana for so-called medical reasons is just an excuse to stay stoned. I do not support its decriminalization for any reason. As much as marijuana advocates say it is not a gateway drug, I contend is, as I have never known a druggie who stopped with marijuana, they always want to a better high. That’s the problem today, people who are weak and susceptible to drug addiction are seeking a better high. That’s the reason for the current national addiction to opioids. No, the last American needs is legal weed.
1
Hey Southern Boy, have a heart. Weak people are not to blame as much as the big Pharmas and easy prescription doctors and dealers that freely distribute, flood the market with addictive pain pills. Maybe ignorance plays a part when people are not smart enough not to begin pain pills -or only for a very restricted period. In circumstances when truly needed, then the desire for another and, another, and another pain pill needs to be very guarded and realize there is a dependency waiting in that pill bottle. Big Pharma and Drug dealers love to get people addicted -using all sorts of ploys -there is little education and conversation in schools. Think Tobacco companies when they had free rein with their glamorous advertising. Like an alcoholic needing just one more drink...some people simply have an addictive nature. We are all different. Be kind.
1
what a great day. lots of people are complaining about the cost but this is why we should have universal health insurance. because cancer could happen to anyone, everyone subsidizes the cost of the treatment of people who get it.
52
An open-ended entitlement?
Had this been available twenty-five years ago my mother might not have succumbed to NHL. Many commenters mentioned the price, but conventional chemotherapy isn't cheap either. I am grateful that as a retired public school teacher my mother had excellent health insurance. In all other developed countries health care is a right for all, not just those with strong unions or deep pockets. I hope the USA will catch up within my lifetime.
36
In all other developed countries, they don't offer $370,000 experimental therapies to patients with Stage IV disease.
3
Wrong. It depends on the country but in France and many other countries immunotherapy is available.
2
There's no guarantee this would even be offered. People here seem to believe universal care is some kind of panacea. Health care is not a right, someone has to pay for it. You're not going to get cadillac care at chevy prices.
Does anyone in the organizations (Medicare, Medicaid, insurance companies. etc) conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine if these kind of drugs, and other expensive treatments, are cost effective.
Is there a limit on how much we, the taxpayers or insurance customers, are willing to pay to prolong lives, by few months in most cases. Do we have any say in how our money is spent?
4
In this case the patients had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and had undergone two regimens of chemotherapy that failed. There are not a lot of options for these patients and nothing to compare the cost effectiveness against. How do you put a number on a life?
21
Medicare is prohibited by law from considering the cost of a therapy when making its decisions about whether to cover. Ridiculous but true
5
As a 5+ yr survivor of NHL for whom multiple courses of conventional chemo failed & finally achieved mitigation via autologous stem cell transplant this is a question with which I struggled for more than two years of active therapy. Nor do I have a good answer, even for myself.
My insurance was terminated before I completed the first course of chemo, medical expenses had topped a quarter of a million dollars (roughly three months into a multi-state two year regimen. No cost benefit analysis could/can possibly justify that expense for a single individual.
Unfortunately single individuals are what we deal with, in most cases, at this point, in oncology interventions.
The only 'happy' news is that without initial treatment of astronomically expensive outliers there is not way to reduce cost of intervention for general public.
How any society, polity deals with expense of public health is never ending debate but one from which the public, in USA, has largely been excluded.
In case it is not clear, internally, I can still not justify public expense for my current survival . . . but refrained from moving to OR when I had the chance
7
Yes, good news; science works. However this drug was developed at taxpayer expense and will now cost taxpayers > $300k per treatent. Who can afford this, will insurance pay for it? It is sure good news for Big Pharma. What were the total expenditures by Kite for this windfall? If 3500 people per year use the drug at $300k, that's over $1B per year. I doubt if Kite spent that to develop this wonder drug, let's see the data to determine if this is a reasonable price or gouging.
36
You must also calculate the cost that the manufacturer will incur in future lawsuits. We all know the routine, patient facing imminent death tries the drug and dies anyway. The grieving family (and greedy lawyers) ask for millions claiming the drug caused the death. It defies logic.
6
Would also be good to evaluate the agreements (CRADAs) & exclusive licenses Kite paid for, dollar amounts which are likely minimal given that NIH pays staff's salaries. So, has Kite/Gilead discounted the patient's costs to account for taxpayers' investment?
6
the drug was not developed at tax payer expense, educate yourself
I am delighted that despite the downturn in intelligence and education in our governance, that (at least for the moment) or scientific advances forge onward. Of course, there is a possibility that no one except the top, say, 5% of Americans will be able to get his wonderful treatments. I was curious, however, as to why the human body had to have already undergone two failed regiments of chemotherapy -- which also take a toll on one's body -- before this treatment can be applied.
10
The approval of this therapy is all and good, but approval by the FDA does not mean insurance companies will cover the costs, as many consider such techniques experimental, investigatory, unproven, and medically unnecessary. Thank you.
22
This comment is nonsensical. An insurer can contest what is ‘medically necessary’ to the bitter end, but if a drug is approved by the FDA and prescribed for its approved purpose by definition it is not “experimental, investigatory, or unproven.”
In almost all cases, Medicare covers FDA-approved drugs that are used for their approved purposes. As a taxpayer you will most certainly be paying for $373,000 and $475,000 immunotherapy treatments. In practice, when a treatment is FDA-approved and covered by Medicare private insurers have a hard time denying access to it by their policyholders just because it is expensive. The expense will eventually be reflected in our insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. As a society we need to figure out how or if we can afford that.
2
I was diagnosed with NHL 13 years ago. I had a bone marrow transplant 6 years ago. I had a recurrence 2 years ago, and my cancer is back again (I am going for a PET/CT scan today). I have one of the forms of NHL that this treatment is available for: Diffuse Large B Cell, and have been waiting for the FDA to approve this treatment. I am overjoyed.
143
I was diagnosed with Stage 4 Diffuse Large B-cell NHL in 2014, Went through the standard RCHOP chemo (8 treatments), and now in remission. Many comments mention the cost, but we all know that new technology + treatments are often initially expensive, but after some time the costs may come down. This new treatment is exciting on many levels. Who knows, maybe if the costs come down, it could be the primary mode of treatment, and not just used as the actual last resort.
11
For all the naysayers remember the
concept that saving the life of
one person is saving a universe.
For all the criticisms expressed,
science moves forward one tiny step
at a time. On the back of progress
is a chance for more progress. My
heart goes out to those who have
cancer and I wish you good health.
Overcoming disease is beyond "good luck"
or "miracles".
It is science, intelligent research,
labs, patients in trials and funds.
4
BMT costs over $ 1 million in the US. Keep that in mind if considering cost. Of course BMT is far less expensive in other countries, as this therapy will probably also be.
nice to start the day with a bit of good news. Sounds like there is a lot more work to do on the side effects.
This is what hope looks like.
48