Weighing Costs In Choosing Cancer Care

Source: Associated Press

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Mon Mar 24, 7:41 PM ET

WASHINGTON - You've just been diagnosed with cancer, and the doctor is discussing treatment options. Should the cost be a deciding factor? Chemotherapy costs are rising so dramatically that later this year, oncologists will get their first guidelines on how to have a straight talk with patients about the affordability of treatment choices, a topic too often sidestepped.

"These are awkward discussions," says Dr. Allen Lichter of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which is writing the guidelines. "At least we can bring this out in the open."

It's a particular issue for patients whose cancer can't be cured but who are seeking both the longest possible survival and the best quality of life — and may be acutely aware that gaining precious months could mean bankrupting their families.

The prices can be staggering. Consider: There are two equally effective options to battle metastatic colon cancer, the kind spreading through the body — but one costs $60,000 more than the other, says Dr. Leonard Saltz of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.




Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/healthbeat_cancer_costs;_ylt=AgD_4qMDV.auQaphxEUQJ7Ws0NUE

and when I've needed to go to a doc, cost has been a very big factor.

Fortunately, I was a nurse, so I knew when older drugs that were cheaper than dirt would work just as well or better than the newest generation of drugs.

That means cheap antibiotics that need to be taken every 6 hours for ten days instead of an expensive pack of Zithromax.

Were I confronting a curable variety of cancer, I'd opt for the cheaper drug.

that I don't believe in simply prolonging life. I'm 64 so I well may have to face something like that in the forseeable future. I remember my great aunt agreeing to eexploratory surgury, and the oxygin in the air caused the cancer to grow much more rapidly. She died less than 3 months after her operation. I can understand someone using teatments to CURE a disease, but not to deter the inevitable.

Cost really does matter! My husband went to his Dr's office last September because he had been feeling terrible for 2 days. It took him another 2 days to get an appointment. His Dr. said he wanted him to go directly to the ER...he was afraid it was a heart problem. My husband kept telling him no because of the COST! I told him not to worry about it and we'd work it out somehow. The Dr. called the ambulance to take him directly from the office.

He was given lots of tests and kept overnight. They determined the cause of his problems was stress at work. The copays were $2,489! I'm still paying them off!

2 1/2 years ago I went to the ER because I boroke my leg. I guess that's where my husbands concern came from because the copays on MY claim were $2,500!

We are doing ok, but we don't have a lot of money, and we both know we can't afford $5,000 every 2 or 3 years! It's a really difficult spot to be in, but I think I can say I would NEVER spend thousands just to prolong my life for a couple of months.

Get well. Enjoy your family. I'll be damned if I let a bunch of rich fucks take my life.

He was lucky enough to have been diagnosed shortly after turning 65. He's a doctor who's made a good living, lived modestly, and has private insurance. Without medicare kicking in to cover the astronomical costs of chemo, he'd be bankrupt after just two years of treatments. What kind of society puts the added financial burden on those fighting for their lives? It's immoral and inhumane to put a price tag on human life. We need a not-for-profit health care system like every other industrialized society.

They can shop around for the best treatment options and not the cheapest options. They can scan the globe for what they want. The poor have to stand in line in a clinic and hope there is at least one option they can afford. This doesn't stop with the patient either. Any devastating condtion/disease/illness affects the entire family. Sitters,transportation,every day bills,choosing between keeping your job or taking care of your medical condition is always a catch 22. The wealthy never have to make tough choices. They can afford childcare,take off from work. Everyday bills don't seem half the challenge when you have emergency money. As a "civilized" country we should not have such a huge difference between the rich and poor when it comes to healthcare.

The treatments are practically as bad as the disease.

I was glad to see a news report on M$M yesterday about a woman who had been told she had inoperable cancer because of it's location behind her organs and around her aorta. A transplant surgeon removed her organs and then removed the cancer (which he referred to as the easy part) and then put her organs back into her body. It appeared that she put a lot of effort into her investigation to find this surgeon. She was not young. She was not ready to stop living.

Whenever a doctor tries a new strategy it is a learning experience (50-50). Currently what is offered areOptions are to cut, burn, or poison. Nothing remotely like an actual cure. as was offered by an earlier poster.

But most of all I'll agree that we need universal health care not an insurance scheme that pits the have-nots and have-mores against each other. The only winner in that game is the insurance companies.

It's so insane that people have to worry about the cost, instead of concentrating on getting well. The U.S. is a barbaric nation for not having single-payer.

is being sold to hospitals and why the practice should be banned. I don't want my oncologist to read my medical credit rating and decide to not offer me all the options available because he/she thinks I can't afford the most expensive ones.

I have a friend who was supposed to get hip replacements for pain he's been having for years. It took a long time to get a diagnosis, and finally they did- and it was planned for after he retired, which is going to be in a few weeks. Well, I saw him yesterday, and it seems the doctors have changed their minds.

He thinks the HMO has pressured them against it because of the cost. The thing is, he is 56 and it would be easier on him now than when he is older. I also think that if they don't approve it now, they never will, and he will be in pain the rest of his life, and this will be a pre-existing condition he will just have to live with.