“Dendreon shares are down today on the heels of news that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will undergo a lengthy review of whether or not Provenge “is reasonable and necessary under sections 1862(a)(1)(A) and/or 1862(a)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act” and should be reimbursed by Medicare.
Most analysts believe that Medicare will ultimately agree to pay for Provenge, because it’s FDA-approved, and it was shown to extend survival by 4 months in clinical trials.”
Meantime the UK’s Telegraph reports:
Kidney cancer patients denied drug that can extend their livesKidney cancer patients will not be allowed a new drug that could extend their lives by up to three months because it is too expensive, the NHS drug rationing body has said.
Four months added survival for one drug – and questions are raised about why the U.S. is even reviewing the drug.
Three months added survival for another drug – and the British National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence says the drug does not offer enough benefit to patients to justify the cost.
I wish we’d see more comparisons like this in American journalism. Both headlines – both stories – were right out there for anyone to see this week. The irony was unavoidable.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gentry Yeatman MD
July 4, 2010 at 10:39 amGary, bless you for your work. (My comments are about your articles general) I absolutely hate how journalists sensationalize medical research. It gives people false hope of research in its embryonic stages that may or may not pan out. It creates dangerous situations where people may avoid a proven and needed methodology when a single poorly designed study “contradicts” fact. Keep up the good work. It might be good to at some point to add what research does show in many of the areas discussed. I know that would be very time consuming and frequently there is not a clear answer.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like