Medications in Texas May Soon Be Given With Money-Back Guarantees

Pharmaceutical companies are starting to act likemiserable, and others quite content? It would be
a lot of other for-profit organizations by offeringdifficult to explain to family members that their
money-back guarantees on their drugs.loved ones died because the drug that may have
Companies such as Johnson & Johnson andsaved them wasn't "cost-effective" enough on a
United Healthcare are presenting "risk-sharing"national level to administer.
programs to governments with single-payer,The current American, privatized health insurance
universal health care systems, as well as tosystem has its own pros and cons. A major
private health insurance companies in the Unitedbenefit is that state and federal regulations, as
States.well as marketplace pressures, make it more
Risk-sharing agreements first started to gaindifficult for an insurer to refuse to pay for a drug
international attention with the marketing of thealready approved by the Food and Drug
cancer drug Velcade, generically marketed asAdministration (FDA), regardless of price.
bortezomib. A British advisory board originally ruledOn the other hand, drugs are often approved by
against administering the drug due tothe FDA through similar "effectiveness"
cost-effectiveness issues, even though it hadevaluations - i.e., at least partially, in terms of how
been approved to treat relapses of the boneeffective the drug is statistically compared to its
marrow cancer multiple myeloma. The board ruledcosts. A drug may show promising results for a
that the drug's results, in relation to its overallfew patients, but still may not be approved.
costs, simply weren't worth it. A group of women"Market pressures," while pushing insurance
diagnosed with the disease, known as thecompanies to make FDA-approved drugs
Yorkshire Three, protested the decision and tookavailable, may influence the approval process itself
the government to court, forcing the board tothrough lobbyists and other organizations with a
reconsider. Johnson & Johnson subsequentlyvested interest in the "cost-effectiveness" of
proposed the risk-sharing agreement as a meanspharmaceutical companies themselves.
to get Velcade on the market.Risk-sharing proposals would make it easier to
"If we didn't enter the risk-sharing scheme, weallow doctors and health insurance companies to
wouldn't really have a market here in the U.K.,"offer experimental and expensive treatments
said Pete Smith, British manager for Biogen Idec.without great financial risk, thereby eliminating
Under Johnson & Johnson's proposal, allmuch of these back-and-forth market pressures.
patients would be eligible to receive four cycles, atDrugs may also eventually be priced based on
$24,000 cost per patient. If the tumors shrankhow well they actually work, making those with
sufficiently, measurable by a blood test,statistically lower results less expensive to try.
treatment would continue, usually for another fourCigna, a major health insurer in the U.S., is trying
cycles, and the national health service would pay.to force manufacturers of cholesterol-lowing pills,
If the tumors did not shrink, treatment wouldlike Lipitor, to pay for the costs of treating
stop, and the government would get its moneypatients who consistently take the drug, but still
back.experience heart attacks. United Healthcare,
Such agreements could have tremendous benefitsanother larger insurer, is also entering "risk-sharing
for states like Texas, with an overburdenedexperiments" with companies like Genomic Health,
health care system, and over 25% of itswhich administers a genetic test that may
population going without any health insurancedetermine whether women with early-stage
whatsoever. Risk-sharing strategies maybreast cancer would benefit from chemotherapy.
eventually lower the costs of certain treatments,Some pharmaceuticals, like Genentech, maker of
thereby reducing risks to health insurers -- in turn,expensive cancer treatment drugs, refuse to
making coverage more affordable. It may alsoenter into such agreements, saying they already
provide relief for cities like Austin, Dallas, andtry to make their drugs available to lower income
Houston, which are scrambling to conjure up wayspatients. "The point is to try to make the
to pay for the costs of treating all those withoutmanufacturer responsible for how their product is
coverage coming in from rural areas to seekused in the medical marketplace," commented Dr.
treatment.Lee Newcomer, senior vice-president for oncology
As foolproof as such ideas sound, however, theat United Healthcare.
proposal still has its glitches. The BritishSo what does the public actually think? Anthony
government and Johnson-Cilag -- the unitFarino, pharmaceutical industry consultant at
negotiating the deal for the pharmaceuticalPricewaterhouseCoopers, is convinced it will be in
company -- disagree on precisely what constitutessupport of risk-sharing proposals. "I think payers
"sufficient" shrinkage. The British governmentwill say, 'If the product works and it creates
wants to designate cost-effectiveness as "partialvalue, we will reward you for it. If not, we won't
response," measurable as a 50% reduction in areward you.'"
particular protein produced by the tumors.But thinking of a life-saving drug -- even if it only
Johnson-Cilag argue that a "minor response," or asaves a few lives -- as a "product" to be
25% reduction in the protein, is enough to"rewarded," chafes against many people's
constitute continued treatments. Furtherinclination toward compassionate care, no matter
complications come into play when experts arguethe cost or "reward."
that some patients show only a minimal response"Personally, I think it's despicable to view these
after four cycles, but later go on to havedrugs as cost-effective products, on any level,"
complete remission due to continuedsaid Anne, an administrative assistant with minimal
administration of the drug.health coverage. "Since when did my life and
The need for risk-proposal strategies has becomedeath become some commodity to be bought
one criticism of single-payer, universal healthcareand sold at the right price? If I get some horrible
systems. Under such systems, a drug is oftendisease and the technology exists to save me,
only given when it is deemed "cost-effective,"shouldn't I be given that chance, regardless of
meaning that the medication is evaluated basedhow much it costs?"
on "how much the health system must pay toBeing aware of government policies affecting
achieve certain gains in length and quality ofaccess to drugs is an important part of watching
patients' lives." But quality of life is very subjectiveout for your health. How you take care of
indeed. How much is a drug "worth" -- howyourself will certainly affect you as you age, and
"effective" is it -- if it only saves a few lives, oreventually your wallet, as well.
when the same effects leave some patients