The Price of Tykerb

I just saw a story on Bloomberg about Tykerb. The story said that the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has rejected Tykerb to treat women with advanced breast cancer because it is too expensive. 

The story gives the cost of a year's worth of Tykerb as about $35,000. 

That number probably came from the drug's manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, but, in fact, it is not correct. I am taking Tykerb, and the price to patients is $3,600/month, which works out to $43,200/year. 

If the drug manufacturer was the source of the low-ball number, I'm not surprised. For years, the press reported that Herceptin, another drug I take, cost about $3,000/month, which was not true. The source for that number was, of course, Genentech, which makes Herceptin. (See: The True Cost of Herceptin)

The drug maker offered to give the drug to UK women for three months for free, but it was an offer that came with strings: If the drug worked in these women, then the drug maker expected to be reimbursed. 

I think GSK is hoping that cancer patients will get up in arms and demand the drug, making it difficult for the National Health Service to deny it to them. I don't know if UK health authorities are playing hardball, hoping that GSK will cut the price of the drug, but if they are, more power to them. Someone has to stand up to these greedy drug makers. 

Read the story: Glaxo's Tykerb Cancer Drug Is Rejected ...

@ Jeanne Sather 2009. 

Comments

[Jenna (aka sis #2, whidbychick)]

My understanding* why drugs are less expensive in countries who have socialized medicine is this... because the government subsidizes everything, the drug companies charges them less... otherwise the countries would not buy these type of drugs. But then to cover the difference, they charge Americans more. As separate entities, American insurance companies have less power to manipulate prices as someone like Canada or Britian has. Also, American insurance companies just pass on the buck to the American consumer. So in effect, if your British friends had the same system as us, you'd be paying less.

Drug companies also end up charging more for things like aspirins and other drugs that have been around forever; (they don't have to pay for R&D,) to make up the difference for the high cost of certain meds.

Socialized medicine in the U.S. would be bad for the world because of this factor... they wouldn't get the cheaper drugs, plus drug companies would not have a much money to invest into research and development... meaning less and less drug technology.

Also the difference is that in socialize med. countries, companies and doctors cannot be sued like they can in America. Fighting legal battles take quite a bit of $.

*Right or wrong, I do not know, but this was how it was it was explain to me by my husband who is a financial analysis and has worked in Europe.