The West Australian: Poor kept in dark on cancer treatments

DAWN GIBSON

One in three medical specialists would not tell a cancer patient about a new drug that could prolong their life or improve their last days if the doctors thought the cost was well beyond the patient’s means.

Startling new medical research has highlighted how Australia has developed a two-tier system for cancer treatment - one for the rich and another for everyone else - because new-generation, life-prolonging drugs that cost up to $60,000 a year are not available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

A national survey of almost 200 medical oncologists found some doctors were reluctant to tell patients about unsubsidised drugs if they thought they could not afford them.

Depending on the scenario, between 28 per cent and 41 per cent of doctors who responded said they would not mention a drug’s availability if they believed a patient could not fund the treatment. One of the most common reasons cited was that it would be too distressing for the patient and their family.

Study co-author Professor John Zalcberg, a director at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, attacked the Federal Government for not doing more to ensure new-generation drugs were available to everyone, not just the wealthy.

Known as “biologicals” because they use the body’s own systems to defeat or slow cancer, the drugs commonly cost $1000 a week. The most controversial new drug, Avastin, can prolong the lives of bowel cancer patients by up to five months, at a cost of $4500 per month. It is not on the PBS.

Another example is breast cancer drug Herceptin, which costs $60,000 a year. The Government will decide in July whether it should be subsidised for the treatment of the early stages of breast cancer.

“We have had examples where effective drugs have been delayed for some time before they have become available and some are still not available,” Professor Zalcberg said.

He said the Government had a right to ration health care but the way it was done was not transparent or understandable to the public.

Professor Zalcberg said the survey was done in 2003 and 2004 though the findings had just been published. It was likely doctors were now more open about these drugs as their benefits were more widely known.

Australian Medical Association ethics spokeswoman Rosanna Capolingua agreed that the prohibitive cost and lack of PBS subsidies had created a two-tier system for cancer treatment, though the Government was listening to people lobbying for the subsidies on new drugs.

Health Consumers Council executive director Michele Kosky said patients had a right to know about drugs that could help them so they could make their own decisions.