New York Times
March 12, 2006
A Cancer Drug's Big Price Rise Disturbs Doctors and Patients
By ALEX BERENSON
On Feb. 3, Joyce Elkins filled a prescription for a two-week supply of
nitrogen mustard, a decades-old cancer drug used to treat a rare form
of lymphoma. The cost was $77.50.
On Feb. 17, Ms. Elkins, a 64-year-old retiree who lives in Georgetown,
Tex., returned to her pharmacy for a refill. This time, following a
huge increase in the wholesale price of the drug, the cost was
$548.01.
Ms. Elkins's insurance does not cover nitrogen mustard, which she must
take for at least the next six months, at a cost that will now total
nearly $7,000. She and her husband, who works for the Texas Department
of Transportation, are paying for the medicine by spending less on
utilities and food, she said.
The increase has stunned doctors, who say it starkly illustrates two
trends in the pharmaceutical industry: The soaring price of cancer
medicines and the tendency for those prices to have little relation to
the cost of developing or making the drugs.
Genentech, for example, has indicated it will effectively double the
price of its colon cancer drug Avastin, to about $100,000, when
Avastin's use is expanded to breast and lung cancer patients. As with
Avastin, nothing about nitrogen mustard is changing but the price.
"Nitrogen mustard has been around forever," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld,
the deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society.
"There's nothing that I am aware of in the treatment environment that
I am aware of that would explain an increase in the cost of the drug."
Nitrogen mustard, also known as Mustargen, was developed more than 60
years ago and is among the oldest chemotherapy drugs. For decades, it
has been blended into an ointment by pharmacists and used as a topical
treatment for a cancer called cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare form
of cancer that mainly affects the skin.
And once a company sets a price, government agencies, private
insurers, and patients have little choice but to pay it. The Food &
Drug Administration does not regulate prices, and Medicare is banned
from considering price in deciding whether to cover treatments.
<snip>
Many patients who rely on expensive drugs are stuck in a bind. Don
Schare of Saratoga, Calif., said he paid $1,260 last month for 200
grams of nitrogen mustard cream, about 10 times what he paid for his
prior prescription. Mr. Schare, 69, said he was covered by the new
Medicare Part D drug program as well as supplemental insurance from
AARP, but that neither of his plans covered Mustargen.
"It's an obscene gesture on the company's part to raise something by a
factor of 10," Mr. Schare said.
Jeffrey Malavasic, 58, a retired railroad worker in Florence, Ore.,
said he had decided to fill only half of his Mustargen prescription
when he learned of the price increase. He used the drug sparingly in
the past and will be even more frugal, he said...
ohush@unc.edu - 11 Mar 2006 21:29 GMT
> New York Times
> March 12, 2006
> A Cancer Drug's Big Price Rise Disturbs Doctors and Patients
> By ALEX BERENSON
Here's the whole article. You cut out some pertinent points.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/12price.html?hp&ex=1142139600&en=3bde
c083598e50d4&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Skeptic - 11 Mar 2006 22:42 GMT
>> New York Times
>> March 12, 2006
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/12price.html?hp&ex=1142139600&en=3bde
c083598e50d4&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Thanks for the full link
So the question becomes... what to do? From an individual perspective,
price that becomes prohibitively expensive results in non-treatment. From a
business perspective, continuuing to sell the product at lower prices
probably results in lost revenue and seems to gain the company no good will.
Government intervention? Vernon would say no... but ... they subsidize
farmers for crops, right? Seems to be no easy solution, not in a free
market environment.
Herman Rubin - 13 Mar 2006 17:27 GMT
>>> New York Times
>>> March 12, 2006
>>> A Cancer Drug's Big Price Rise Disturbs Doctors and Patients
>>> By ALEX BERENSON
>> Here's the whole article. You cut out some pertinent points.
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/12price.html?hp&ex=1142139600&en=3bde
c083598e50d4&ei=5094&partner=homepage
>Thanks for the full link
>So the question becomes... what to do? From an individual perspective,
>price that becomes prohibitively expensive results in non-treatment. From a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>farmers for crops, right? Seems to be no easy solution, not in a free
>market environment.
It is clear from what has been published that this drug is
not covered by patents. So it must be that nobody else
wants to invest in providing it.

Signature
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Skeptic - 13 Mar 2006 20:18 GMT
>>>> New York Times
>>>> March 12, 2006
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> not covered by patents. So it must be that nobody else
> wants to invest in providing it.
Agreed. So should we/the government mandate a company to do so? Give
incentives? Form a government branch of pharma for such medications?
Keith - 14 Mar 2006 04:32 GMT
>>>>> New York Times
>>>>> March 12, 2006
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Agreed. So should we/the government mandate a company to do so? Give
> incentives? Form a government branch of pharma for such medications?
Actually we do. There are classes of "orphan drugs" that are subsidized.

Signature
Keith
Barry Gold - 18 Oct 2006 20:51 GMT
[snip]
>Nitrogen mustard, also known as Mustargen, was developed more than 60
>years ago and is among the oldest chemotherapy drugs. For decades, it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Drug Administration does not regulate prices, and Medicare is banned
>from considering price in deciding whether to cover treatments.
If the drug is over 60 years old, its patent has long since expired.
That means anybody who wants to can make it and compete with the
existing manufacturer.
So there is the choice that consumers have: buy it from another
manufacturer.
And Medicare requires that drug companies and pharmacies (and everybody
else) charge it no more than they charge consumers buying it for
themselves.
I suppose this is what happened to Mustargen. The drug company
decided that most people buying it are seniors on Medicare, so they
raised the retail price -- so they can charge Medicare more.
Meanwhile, the poor woman who was unfortunate enough to need it before
she turned 65 gets screwed. But if there are a reasonable number of
people who need the drug, you can bet somebody else will be
manufacturing it soon. "Orphan" drugs that only have a few hundred or
thousand potential customers are a different problem, though.
><snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>when he learned of the price increase. He used the drug sparingly in
>the past and will be even more frugal, he said...

Signature
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.