Comments on: Be careful what you wish for http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html#comment-71096 Anonymous Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:42:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html#comment-71096 I have to side with the NHS. Lucentis also was just found to have a 1.2% risk of stroke associated with its use. This is a very expensive medication, essentially a form of chemotherapy for the eye. The issue is economic resources. If I were the patient mentioned in the article, I would ask my doctor for the much cheaper Avastin, or pay out of pocket. A lawsuit will not bring back your sight. I have to side with the NHS. Lucentis also was just found to have a 1.2% risk of stroke associated with its use. This is a very expensive medication, essentially a form of chemotherapy for the eye. The issue is economic resources. If I were the patient mentioned in the article, I would ask my doctor for the much cheaper Avastin, or pay out of pocket. A lawsuit will not bring back your sight.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html#comment-71090 Anonymous Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:30:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/01/be-careful-what-you-wish-for.html#comment-71090 Approving Lucentis will be opening Pandora's box as far as treatment costs are concerned. It makes much more sense to use Avastin, which works well at a fraction of the cost. <br /><br />The cost to our practice FOR THE DRUG ONLY with only one doctor providing Lucentis treatments is about $1 million dollars per year. This cost didn't exist 2 years ago. Think how many additional doctors or other services could be funded for this amount Add in all the additional costs of office visits, mulitple repeated fluorescein angiograms, and repeated treatments and it is readily apparent that Lucentis funding will have to come at the expense of other programs or out-of-pocket to be afforded. Don't think Lucentis cures macular degeneration either. It may be a good option, but most patients with wet degeneration, especially if advanced, will still have significant visual impairment even if the blood vessels regress. Approving Lucentis will be opening Pandora’s box as far as treatment costs are concerned. It makes much more sense to use Avastin, which works well at a fraction of the cost.

The cost to our practice FOR THE DRUG ONLY with only one doctor providing Lucentis treatments is about $1 million dollars per year. This cost didn’t exist 2 years ago. Think how many additional doctors or other services could be funded for this amount Add in all the additional costs of office visits, mulitple repeated fluorescein angiograms, and repeated treatments and it is readily apparent that Lucentis funding will have to come at the expense of other programs or out-of-pocket to be afforded. Don’t think Lucentis cures macular degeneration either. It may be a good option, but most patients with wet degeneration, especially if advanced, will still have significant visual impairment even if the blood vessels regress.

]]>