Do Medicines Cost Too Much? By Dr Kathleen Thompson

The UK Cancer Drug Fund, which funds non-NHS cancer treatments, has removed twenty-five drugs off its list recently, to combat a £100 million (and rising) overspend. This highlights a recurring dilemma of modern healthcare.

Medical science is advancing with cosmic speed. Patients with desperate diseases have new hope. Genetic advances allow personalised medicine for enhanced individual benefit.

However, drug costs are becoming frighteningly high, and, as people live longer, health budgets rise further. To be cynical, it was cheaper when people simply didn’t survive.

In response, many governments have attempted to force medicine prices down. Politically a quick win. But what are the consequences?

Let’s examine the drug development process. 

picture2drugarticle180915

First a drug target is chosen – often a protein molecule (receptor) on the surface of some of our cells.

Thousands of chemicals are then screened. If they bind to this receptor, they could influence how that cell works, and hence affect disease activity.

Chemicals which do bind are further narrowed down to those with additional potential drug properties—those likely to be well-absorbed, lack toxicity, and remain in the body long enough to work.

A lead candidate is chosen, and then modified further, optimising its chances of success.

Next, as required by government regulations, it is tested in animals and in the test-tube, for potential safety, effectiveness, and suitable dose.

Finally, clinical trials can begin. Often in healthy volunteers first, then small numbers of patients and finally in many patients. Thousands of people are usually tested before a drug can be marketed, and the size and duration of clinical trials has increased, as regulatory requirements have increased1.

Consequently, the typical cost of a new drug development is US$350 million according to a recent study by Forbes2.

But it’s worse than that—the development path is littered with booby-traps and precipices. Fledgling drugs frequently fail, and the Tufts Centre study found that, even those medicines which make it as far as clinical trials, have only  approximately a 12% chance of eventually reaching the market3.

Thus, including the costs of failed developments, the actual cost for each successful drug is nearer US$2.6 billion3, and for many smaller companies, if the roulette wheel isn’t kind, the cost is failure and liquidation.

Pharmaceutical companies are not angels, nor are they demons. To survive, they must make enough profit from their marketed drugs to fund their development pipeline, in addition to returning some profit to shareholders. Long drug-development times, mean they may only have a few years of patent-protection left to achieve this. If governments force prices down, companies sometimes react by reducing development risk – choosing drugs more likely to succeed in preference to innovative but riskier developments for difficult diseases.

A typical drug development takes around ten years – so we won’t see this effect immediately, and when we do, it will be too late – it could take another ten years to correct.

So there’s the problem – health bills cannot continue rising exponentially, but forcing drug prices down has serious consequences too. What to do?

Further Information and References:

1. http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/rd_brochure_022307.pdf

2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/

3. http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/Tufts_CSDD_briefing_on_RD_cost_study_-_Nov_18,_2014..pdf

Note: These articles express personal views. No warranty is made as to the accuracy or completeness of information given and you should always consult a doctor if you need medical advice

 

 

Kate Nash & Leona Lewis Donate Bunny Selfies to #BeCrueltyFree Campaign

Stars’ bunnies, Fluffy and Melrose, get active for #InternationalRabbitDay

cute bunny rabbit kate nash leoni lewis

Award-winning British singer-songwriters Kate Nash and Leona Lewis have joined with bunny lovers from all over the world to say, ‘Bunnies are for cuddling, not cosmetics testing” on International Rabbit Day (Sept 27). The stars donated bunny selfies in support of Humane Society International’s #BeCrueltyFreecampaign for a worldwide end to cosmetics testing on rabbits, guinea pigs, mice and other animals.

Kate tweeted a photo of herself with Fluffy: “My bunny Fluffy is my best friend. I love her so much, and I’d never let anyone hurt her. It’s so sad to think that there are thousands of rabbits just as lovely as Fluffy, trembling in laboratories as chemicals are dripped in their eyes to test cosmetics. Bunnies are for cuddling, not cruel cosmetics testing. That’s why Fluffy and I support HSI’s #BeCrueltyFree campaign. Let’s end testing cosmetics on animals once and for all!”

Leona tweeted a selfie of herself and Melrose sharing a kiss: “I want bunnies to #BeCrueltyFree with @HSIGlobal let’s end cosmetics cruelty!” The Glassheart singer also recently posted an article on her Lee-Loy Blog about her desire to see a global end to cosmetics animal testing.

Leona’s blog reads: “Ending animal testing is also about getting laws changed, Bills introduced, advancing cutting-edge science, lobbying politicians and grabbing some serious face time in the beauty brand board room to get things changed. And for that you need kick-ass campaigners who know what they’re talking about. Our favourite bunny-hugging beauty crusaders are the #BeCrueltyFree campaign from Humane Society International.”

Rabbits are commonly used to test cosmetics alongside smaller animals such as mice. In skin and eye irritation tests first developed in the 1940s, rabbits are held in full body restraints so that chemicals can be dripped in their eyes or spread on their shaved skin. These tests are notoriously unreliable as well as cruel.

The European Union, Norway, Israel and India have all banned animal testing for cosmetics, and bans are being considered in Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the United States. The #BeCrueltyFree campaign has been a driving force behind much of this global progress.

Hundreds of cruelty-free companies around the world such as LUSH, Lippy Girl and Barry M, produce safe products without animal testing. They do so by using existing ingredients combined with available state-of-the-art non-animal tests.

Say NO to cosmetics cruelty – sign the #BeCrueltyFree pledge.

 

The Unpaid Acting Work Dilemma by Professionally Resting.

Casting call: ““Unfortunately we’re not able to offer a fee on this occasion.”

Sadly this type of casting call is one that I’m all too used to seeing. At least 75% of castings will
contain the above sentence or a wonderfully inventive version of it (such as the incredible ‘This is
a no-pay experience!’) It’s unfortunately become a fact of acting life and I’ve become as skilled as
sifting through castings as I have at rifling through sandwiches for rogue tomatoes. Directors will try
and soften the blow by telling you that you’ll get a credit to put on your CV (gee, thanks) and that
they’ll be providing you with food on set. On-set catering can be a thing of beauty (pizza) but it can
also be an utter horror made of stale sandwiches. Apparently actors can live on credits and bread
alone. If only landlords, phone companies and councils could be fobbed off in the same way.

Unpaid work has become a rather aggressive disease in the acting world. What was once the domain
of film students and wannabe filmmakers; it has now entered the world of television. And this is
a worrying development. I understand that however much they’d like to, students and smaller
production companies can’t always afford to pay people. The ethics bother me because I believe
that if you can’t afford to pay everyone then you probably shouldn’t be making the piece in the first
place but that’s an argument for another day. Unpaid work happens and sadly, just like the damp in
our flat, I have to deal with it for now and watch it ever so slowly ruin me. I should also admit that
I’ve taken on my fair share of unpaid work in the past. Unfortunately there are times when you have
very little choice and so you can either do nothing or take on some unpaid work in the hope that
it might just get you spotted. It won’t, but you never know when that top agent is going to turn up
at a secondary school in Northampton to watch you prance about telling kids about the dangers of
heroin. But now the bigger companies have jumped on the bandwagon and suddenly everything is
starting to topple over.

There have been a string of very high-profile companies that have recently started advertising
unpaid or expenses only work. And when I say ‘high-profile’ I mean the type of companies
that produce widely watched primetime programmes that air on terrestrial channels. These
are companies that clearly have plenty of money, or at least enough cash to make sure that all
performers are fairly paid. When they start offering unpaid work, what kind of message does that
send out to all the other companies? Apparently it’s now perfectly acceptable for these businesses
(one of whom made a profit of £471m last year) to get performers to work for free. But these
companies forget that actors often have a lot of time on their hands so it doesn’t take too long
before they’re ousted via the beauties of social networking. But what happens when they get found
with their devious trousers around their tight-fisted ankles? Well, what has happened recently
is that they make like George Osborne and u-turn. However, they don’t then promise to do the
honourable thing and actually pay actors. Oh no. Their reaction is to say that they will instead be
casting friends, family or employees. That’s what this profession has been downgraded to. Actors
are now regarded so poorly that we can be instantly replaced with the make-up artist’s cousin and
the focus puller’s university mates the second we start to complain. We find ourselves so low on the
career ladder that we’ve now been downgraded to the lackey that just holds the ladder and watches
everyone else climb up it.

So what this means is that actors will yet again be forced into unpaid work as they desperately try
to keep hold of a career that’s more slippery than a greased-up seal. We continually find ourselves
being held to ransom where we can either ‘shut up and put up’ or keep fighting and risk the chance
of never working again. Just like the next actor, I’d love the exposure that a primetime programme
would offer but never at my own expense and certainly not just so an exec can save a few precious
pennies and ensure that their bonus is intact for another year. Why should they get to go on exotic
holidays when I’m left wondering how to survive for the next week on a tin of chopped tomatoes
and a rapidly ageing nectarine? It’s at its lowest, meanest level and until all actors make a stand against these companies, all we’re doing is encouraging them to turn our already fragile
industry into a laughing stock.