On July 14 (I’m a little behind, I’ll admit), the NYTimes ran an article maligning market forces for the apparent “underuse” of Zevalin and Bexxar, two drugs on the market for lymphoma.
The article repeatedly makes it seem as though the entire medical community is completely astonished at why these drugs are not used more widely; interspersed between extreme conclusions concerning financial incentives and market forces, the article mentions:
“The drugs have not been clinically proven to prolong survival, compared with other therapies” and that “Other, more thoroughly tested lymphoma drugs are preferred as first-line treatments.” Moreover, “The cost of the drugs is similar to a full four-month regimen of chemotherapy and Rituxan, another lymphoma treatment” which “Doctors agree…is an excellent drug with only minor side effects for most patients.”
Even better still, “The back-and-forth makes the treatment [using Zevalin or Bexxar] complicated to oversee, said Dr. Joseph M. Connors, a lymphoma specialist in Vancouver, British Columbia. ‘The doctors looking after people tend to turn to tools that they themselves know how to use and are familiar with,’ he said.” As a health care consumer myself, I personally prefer the doctors to know what they are prescribing and doing.
Because of the radioactive nature of the drugs which prohibits doctors from administering it, both Medicare and private companies do not pay doctors for a prescription, but do pay for chemotherapy. Sounds to me like a third party payor problem, not a market one…
