DutchNews.nl - Expensive medicine payments should be scrapped, says health advisor

The health insurance council CVZ on Sunday told the health minister it wants to stop payments for three expensive medicines used in the treatment of metabolic disorders, the Nos reports.

The pills are used by patients suffering from the rare Pompe disease and Fabry disease, both of which cause the body to make insufficient amounts of enzymes.

The CVZ says although the pills do have an affect, their cost is too high in comparison with the results they deliver.

In a reaction on Monday, Socialist party MP Renske Leijten told the Nos: 'You cannot refuse patients necessary medicine because it is too expensive.'

Leijten wants an investigation into the cost of producing the pills to see if the manufacturers should lower the price. 'It is not clear why they are so expensive,' she told the Nos.

Pia Dijkstra, MP for the liberal left D66, wants each patient to be examined to see if the medicine is helping control their illness. If so, payment of the cost must continue.

'Of course, the CVZ is there to advise the government on these matters, but we must not forget this is about people,' she said.

Should expensive medicines be covered when health costs are so high? Have your say on the comment form below.

Readers' Comments

I agree that the cost of the treatment has to be in line with the results it delivers, but also, the health system should not be taking the hit of such expensive treatments, and moreso if they are not once in a time but life treatments. My point, if you need to perform surgery for 200k to save a patient life is one thing, if you have to pay the same ammount per year for 40 years for a treament of dubious results, then the answer should be no.

The mest sensitive solution, examine case by case by a panel of doctors.

By Andres | 30 July 2012 9:23 AM

Why is this even EVER a question? These profit based healthcare systems are sickening.

By bobbianderson | 30 July 2012 10:25 AM

Why are they expensive? Because they are rare diseases that affect a small population. Gawd forbid that one doesn't choose to have a more popular one, eh?

I don't know what disgusts me more...that the insurance companies can play god and decide who lives and who dies based merely upon the price of the drugs?

That cutting off funding also affects the company that researched and manufactured these drugs, and therefore jobs? (Not a major pharma company; I used to work for them)

That insurance companies will discourage medical research if nobody can benefit from the results?

Disgusting.

By CW | 30 July 2012 10:37 AM

If they can show that expensive treatments do have an effect, and there are no cheaper alternatives, then yes, insurance companies should continue to pay! Someone's health is much more important than the bottom line of greedy insurance companies. But on the other hand if the effect of the drug is limited, then not only should insurance no longer pay, but the worthless drug should be pulled from the market.

By Sedirea | 30 July 2012 12:06 PM

That's right! Too expensive! Send them home with a paracetamol!

By phantom | 30 July 2012 3:13 PM

My experience is that the health insurers get the money for high-cost treatments back from the government: this has to be applied for by a doctor and can take 6 weeks to be 'authorised' before treatment starts, in non-life-threatening situation.

In short: a patient isn't just put onto a 1/2 million course of treatment 'because it's there', but because it makes a considerable difference to current or future health or the quality of someone's life.

By osita | 30 July 2012 4:34 PM

When is government going to make the decision to help the individual because of illness, because you a person being gay, or because the individual is poor or in the middle class.

By Michael Kadin | 30 July 2012 4:47 PM

While it sounds reasonable to say that medication cannot be denied because of cost, these costs are unreasonable. There does comes a point when society cannot afford to pay for treatment and when drug manufacturers should show some ethical backbone and make it affordable or not at all. If someone can afford millions, by all means spend it, but the average society cannot sustain this kind of drain without eventually being forced to deny even reasonable cost in the long run.

By Allan | 30 July 2012 4:48 PM

its very worrying to think CVZ could play god...............

By jenny | 30 July 2012 7:41 PM

How utterly disgusting of the insurance company...

This is why people pay for insurance in the first place - that if something goes wrong in their life they are covered for illness.

Disgusting!

By B | 31 July 2012 8:10 AM

Expensive and useless compulsory health insurance should be scrapped, it amazes me how such a fraudulent racketeering scheme is permitted in an European country.
But then again this is the country where the secret service openly admits in parliament that they are breaking the law, the same place where they base a jail sentence on a witness who doesn't agree to testify in court.
Don't believe the hype, "betalen" is the word you need,leave the logic at the border before you enter.

By Alberto | 31 July 2012 1:48 PM

Would the CVS want to stop the medicines if their family members were taking them. Folks don't ask to get sick and need them.

By Dee | 31 July 2012 2:41 PM

Refusing therapy won't lead to your perfect world with patients silently dying without costs. Fabry patients will suffer from heart attacks, strokes and renal failure leading to the need of dialysis and transplantation. In addition, therapy gives many patients the chance to keep obtaining money, which enables them to pay taxes and health insurance.

Nobody can tell which costs are caused by refusing the therapy. So how can you compare them to the costs of application?

Nobody could be happier than me if I wouldn't have Fabry or therapy was less expensive, but I don't accept to be left alone in torture and death because of a genetic mutation. I never had a choice or an influence to avoid it.

By Stefan Tolzin | 1 August 2012 11:36 PM