Big drug companies have come under fire from the Federal Government for pushing expensive cancer medications that have limited benefit.
In an explosive submission to a Senate inquiry, the medical brains who decide which drugs get government subsidies have lashed out at some of the big pharmaceutical company’s strategies.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) typically deliberates behind closed doors but has taken the unusual step of making a public submission.
In the submission it complained that some companies push costly cancer drugs which add little to a patient’s life expectancy.
It also accused some companies of using the timing of their submissions to the PBAC as a wedge to maximise their chances of approval by, for example, submitting an application for a government subsidy before the regulator has approved it for use.
The submission said some companies promote medications in marketing and media campaigns that do not accurately reflect the usefulness of the medication, and pointed out that palliative care was often cheaper and adds more to quality life.
Benefits of some drugs overstated
The submission stated that some new cancer drugs would on average only add about two months to a patient’s life, but can cost up to $100,000.
“It is important to note that almost all new cancer drugs are not dramatically more effective than existing treatments,” it stated.
“PBAC is required to consider the adverse effects of new drugs compared to existing treatments, as well as the effect on quality of life.
“In the case regorafenib [a bowel cancer drug] for example, the PBAC found that the very small gain in life expectancy was outweighed by the significant increase in toxicity as well as substantially higher costs.”
The committee said it was strongly opposed to suggestions that companies be allowed to bypass the PBAC to fast-track access to new cancer drugs.
It said this would greatly increase the costs to taxpayers and lead to “justified resentment” among patients with other diseases.
The committee said it was worried patients were being misled about the potential benefits of some medications.
“PBAC members were concerned to hear directly that perceived benefits of some of these new drugs were completely at odds with the evidence in the company submissions,” it said.
The committee has called for the process to be more transparent with more detailed information for patients, doctors and industry.