Volume 197 - Issue 9

Drug treatment for melanoma: progress, but who pays?

Author:  Sonia Fullerton

Med J Aust 2012; 197 (9): 491-492. || doi: 10.5694/mja12.11249
Published online: 5 November 2012
To the Editor: Kefford’s contention that making cancer drugs affordable requires coherent policy and cannot be left to market forces1 is correct. Two new drugs, ipilimumab and vemurafenib, are now approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for use in metastatic melanoma. However, their efficacy in a minority of patients is low. The cost of this palliative treatment ...

To the Editor: Kefford’s contention that making cancer drugs affordable requires coherent policy and cannot be left to market forces1 is correct.

Two new drugs, ipilimumab and vemurafenib, are now approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for use in metastatic melanoma. However, their efficacy in a minority of patients is low. The cost of this palliative treatment is eye-wateringly high. Reimbursement for ipilimumab has been refused in Australia and the United Kingdom.

The greatest opportunity to improve outcomes will come not from discovering new treatments, but from learning how to deliver existing effective therapies.2

An existing effective therapy in quality end-of-life care is palliative service provision. Arguably less glamorous, it improves quality of life3 and can also prolong life compared with standard treatments.4

All dying Australians should have access to quality palliative care to prevent unnecessary suffering.5

Resources in palliative treatments, including money spent on expensive, specifically targeted oncological therapies, could be better and more equitably spent on more generic palliative care services for all Australians.


Author


Competing interests


References