Avoiding Britain's example

A British court just ruled that the UK government unfairly denied anti-dementia drugs to Alzheimer’s patients. The government refused to cover the drugs in order to save money.

This kind of penny-pinching happens all too often in Britain, thanks to its national “comparative effectiveness” agency. The agency conducts studies on the relative effectiveness of various medical treatments, analyzing how different options stack up against one another. Those findings determine which treatments get covered by the British healthcare system.

Some US lawmakers want a similar agency. It too would be used to deny vital treatments to patients.

The British comparative effectiveness agency recently denied approval to two cutting-edge pharmaceuticals: Abatacept, which is clinically proven to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis, and Tarceva, which significantly prolongs the life of cancer patients.

By focusing on which drugs, on average, are cheapest and most effective, comparative effectiveness research can overlook important factors like age, gender and lifestyle. Lawmakers can justify denying treatments that best fit a patient’s particular needs.

An American comparative effectiveness agency should only consider what’s best for individual patients instead of looking for cheap, one-size-fits-all cures. The agency should also be free from political influence.

Otherwise, Americans will be subjected to the same kind of unfair treatment we’ve seen in the UK.

Sally C. Pipes