正气天地博客网

2010年9月27日星期一

How much is a few months of life worth?

Published: Monday September 27, 2010 MYT 8:57:00 AM

How much is a few months of life worth?

MARILYNN MARCHIONE,AP Medical Writer


BOSTON: Cancer patients, brace yourselves. Many new drug treatments cost nearly US$100,000 a year, sparking fresh debate about how much a few months more of life is worth.

The latest is Provenge, a first-of-a-kind therapy approved in April. It costs $93,000 a year and adds four months' survival, on average, for men with incurable prostate tumors. Bob Svensson is honest about why he got it: insurance paid.

"I would not spend that money," because the benefit doesn't seem worth it, says Svensson, 80, a former corporate finance officer from Bedford, Massachusetts.

His supplemental Medicare plan is paying while the government decides whether basic Medicare will cover Provenge and for whom. The tab for taxpayers could be huge — prostate is the most common cancer in American men. Most of those who have it will be eligible for Medicare, and Provenge will be an option for many late-stage cases. A meeting to consider Medicare coverage is set for Nov. 17.

"I don't know how they're going to deal with that kind of issue," said Svensson, who was treated at the Lahey Clinic Medical Center in suburban Boston. "I feel very lucky."

For the last decade, new cancer-fighting drugs have been topping $5,000 a month. Only a few of these keep cancer in remission so long that they are, in effect, cures. For most people, the drugs may buy a few months or years. Insurers usually pay if Medicare pays. But some people have lifetime caps and more people are uninsured because of job layoffs in the recession. The nation's new health care law eliminates these lifetime limits for plans that were issued or renewed on Sept. 23 or later.

Celgene Corp.'s Revlimid pill for multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, can run as much as $10,000 a month; so can Genentech's Avastin for certain cancers. Now Dendreon Corp.'s Provenge rockets price into a new orbit.

Unlike drugs that people can try for a month or two and keep using only if they keep responding, Provenge is an all-or-nothing $93,000 gamble. It's a one-time treatment to train the immune system to fight prostate tumors, the first so-called cancer vaccine. Part of why it costs so much is that it's not a pill cranked out in a lab, but a treatment that is individually prepared, using each patient's cells and a protein found on most prostate cancer cells. It is expensive and time-consuming to make.

It's also in short supply, forcing the first rationing of a cancer drug since Taxol and Taxotere were approved 15 years ago. At the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, doctors plan a modified lottery to decide which of its 150 or so eligible patients will be among the two a month it can treat with Provenge. An insurance pre-check is part of the process to ensure they financially qualify for treatment.

"I'm fearful that this will become a drug for people with more resources and less available for people with less resources," said M.D. Anderson's prostate cancer research chief, Dr. Christopher Logothetis.

For other patients on other drugs, money already is affecting care:

— Job losses have led some people to stop taking Gleevec, a $4,500-a-month drug by Novartis AG that keeps certain leukemias and stomach cancers in remission. Three such cases were recently described in the

New England Journal of Medicine, and all those patients suffered relapses.

— Retirements are being delayed to preserve insurance coverage of cancer drugs. Holly Reid, 58, an accountant in Novato, California, hoped to retire early until she tried cutting back on Gleevec and her cancer recurred. "I'm convinced now I have to take this drug for the rest of my life" and will have to work until eligible for Medicare, she said.

— Lifetime caps on insurance benefits are hitting many patients, and laws are being pushed in dozens of states to get wider coverage of cancer drugs. In Quincy, Massachusetts, 30-year-old grad student Thea Showstack testified for one such law after pharmacists said her first cancer prescription exceeded her student insurance limit. "They said 'OK, that will be $1,900,'" she said. "I was absolutely panicked." The federal health care law forbids such caps on plans issued or renewed Sept. 23 or later.

— Tens of thousands of people are seeking help from drug companies and charities that provide free medicines or cover copays for low-income patients. Genentech's aid to patients has risen in each of the last three years and the company says nearly 85 percent of Americans earn less than $100,000, making them potentially eligible for help if no other programs like Medicaid will pay.

— Doctors and insurers increasingly are doing the cruel math that many cancer patients want to avoid, and questioning how much small improvements in survival are worth. A recent editorial in a medical journal asked whether the extra 11 weeks that Genentech's Herceptin buys for stomach cancer patients justified the $21,500 cost.

Doctors also have questioned the value of Genentech's Tarceva for pancreatic cancer. The $4,000-a-month drug won approval by boosting median survival by a mere 12 days. Here's how to think about this cost: People who added Tarceva to standard chemotherapy lived nearly 6½ months, versus 6 months for those on chemo alone. So the Tarceva folks spent more than $24,000 to get those extra 12 days.

When is a drug considered cost-effective?

The most widely quoted figure is $50,000 for a year of life, "though it has been that for decades — never really adjusted — and not written in stone," said Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a Yale University expert on health care costs.

Many cancer drugs are way over that mark. Estimates of the cost of a year of life gained for lung cancer patients on Erbitux range from $300,000 to as much as $800,000, said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer.

Higher costs seem to be more accepted for cancer treatment than for other illnesses, but there's no rule on how much is too much, he said.

Insurers usually are the ones to decide, and they typically pay if Medicare pays. Medicare usually pays if the federal Food and Drug Administration has approved the use.

"Insurance sort of isolates you from the cost of health care," and if people lose coverage, they often discover they can't afford their medicines, said Dr. Alan Venook, a cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. He wrote in the New England Journal in August about three of his patients who stopped taking or cut back on Gleevec because of economic hardship.

Two of the three now are getting the drug from its maker, Novartis AG, which like most pharmaceutical companies has a program for low-income patients. About 5,000 patients got help for Gleevec last year, said Novartis spokesman Geoffrey Cook.

"We have seen a steady increase in requests over the past few years" as the economy worsened, he said.
Showstack, whose leukemia was diagnosed last year, gets Gleevec from Novartis. The dose she's on now would cost $50,000 a year.

"I'm not actually sure that I know anyone who could afford it," she said.
Gleevec's cost is easier to justify, many say, because it keeps people alive indefinitely — a virtual cure. About 2,300 Americans died each year of Showstack's form of leukemia before Gleevec came on the market; only 470 did last year.

"I don't think we quibble with a drug that buys people magical quality of life for years," Venook said.
It's unclear whether Provenge will ever do that — it needs to be tested in men with earlier stages of prostate cancer, doctors say. So far, it has only been tried and approved for men with incurable disease who have stopped responding to hormone therapy. On average, it gave them four months more, though for some it extended survival by a year or more.

Until it shows wider promise, enthusiasm will be tepid, said Dr. Elizabeth Plimack a prostate specialist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

"I've not had any patient ask for it," she said. "They ask about it. Based on the information, they think the cost is tremendous, and they think the benefit is very small."

Logothetis, at M.D. Anderson, said Provenge and other experimental cancer vaccines in development need "a national investment" to sort out their potential, starting with Medicare coverage.

"It's no longer a fringe science. This is working," he said. "We need to get it in the door so we can evolve it." - AP

2010年9月24日星期五

女富商命案 峇克里駁責不實報道

女富商命案 峇克里駁責不實報道

24/09/2010 16:35

(吉隆坡24日訊)武吉阿曼刑事調查局總監拿督斯里峇克里駁責本地媒體,有關警方攜帶8名嫌犯到醫院抽取精液,以調查女富商蘇西拉華蒂死前有否被強姦的報導不實。
本月23日及24日,《每日新聞》及《星報》分別刊登有關警方攜帶8名嫌犯到中央醫院抽取精液,以調查女富商死前有否被強姦的新聞。
他說,警方將8名嫌犯帶到中央醫院做檢查,是因為要確定他們8人的健康狀況良好,以及身體沒有任何傷痕及疾病,方可讓他們與他們的代表律師及家人會面。
“我們(警方)並沒有向院方要求為8名嫌犯做其他身體檢查。”
峇克里今日發表文告,這樣指出。
此外,關于主嫌犯透過代表律師,聲稱自己在扣留期間遭警方毒打,並被逼簽署不明文件一事,峇克里說,希望有關人士可以向警方報案,以讓警方深入調查。

Ex-Impetus boss acquitted

Tuesday February 13, 2007

Ex-Impetus boss acquitted

By M. MAGESWARI

KUALA LUMPUR: Businessman Ivan Ng Chong Yeng was acquitted and discharged of stock market manipulation through 153 central depository securities (CDS) accounts.

Ng, 41, was said to have created a misleading appearance with respect to the price of Suremax Group Bhd shares on the Main Board of Bursa Malaysia through the sale and purchase of its shares via the CDS accounts, which caused the stock price to rise.

He also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of creating a misleading appearance of active trading of Suremax shares by being indirectly involved in the sale and purchase of Suremax stock that did not cause any change in the beneficial ownership of the said shares, executed through the same CDS accounts.

He was accused of committing the offences at Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd in Exchange Square, Bukit Kewangan, between Nov 24, 2004 and March 22, 2005.

Ng, who was then group chairman of Impetus Consolidated Sdn Bhd, had on Oct 25, 2005 claimed trial to both charges.

Sessions Court judge Akhtar Tahir acquitted Ng yesterday after DPP Ros Mawar Rozain told him that the prosecution wanted to withdraw the charges against him.

In the same court later, former Impetus group executive director Datuk Philip Wong Chee Kheong, 45, and Impetus executive director Francis Bun Lit Chun, 37, claimed trial to an amended charge of creating a misleading appearance in a similar manner during the same period.

The two also pleaded not guilty to an amended alternative charge of creating a misleading appearance of active trading of Suremax shares on a stock market involving nine CDS accounts.

Impetus is an investment holding company while Suremax is a property development and construction firm.

This was said to be one of the biggest cases of market manipulation in Malaysia as it had involved the highest number of CDS accounts at 12 stock broking firms.

If found guilty, they can be fined a minimum of RM1mil and jailed up to 10 years under the Securities Industry Act 1983.

The court then sat for a hearing of the case for the remaining two accused later yesterday.
Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo appeared for Wong, counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin represented Ng and lawyer Hasnan Hamzah for Bun.


Acquitted chairman now prosecution witness

Acquitted chairman now prosecution witness

New Straits Times, Feb 13, 2007 | by Arman Ahmad

KUALA LUMPUR: Just three hours after being acquitted, a company chairman provided damning evidence against his former colleagues in a share manipulation trial.

Ivan Ng Chong Yeng, 39, of Impetus Consolidated Sdn Bhd arrived at the Sessions Court with his former director, Datuk Philip Wong Chee Kheong, 43, and company executive director, Francis Bun Lit Chun, 37, about 9.30am to face charges on share manipulation.

Less than two hours later, Securities Commission deputy public prosecutor Roz Mawar Rozain informed Sessions Court judge Akhtar Tahir that the prosecution was withdrawing its charges against Ng.
Akhtar agreed with the application and granted Ng an acquittal. He fixed hearing in the afternoon, after allowing amended charges to be read against Wong and Bun.

The two are jointly charged with manipulating the price of Suremax Group Bhd shares on Bursa Malaysia.

All this was done through nine Central Depository Security accounts, owned by Bun, Ng and Impetus Development.

The alleged offence took place at Bursa Malaysia in Bukit Kewangan between Nov 24, 2004 and March 22, 2005.

Wong and Bun also faced an alternative charge of trying to create an impression that the shares were being actively traded.

Both claimed trial to the amended and alternative charges. Wong was represented by counsel Gobind Singh Deo, while Hasnan Rezua Merican represented Bun.

At 2.15pm, Ng was brought in as the first prosecution witness.

Ng said Wong had initiated share manipulation on two occasions.

Replying to Roz Mawar, Ng said he, along with Wong, Bun and Suremax owner and managing director, Michael Goh, had bought the shares at higher prices.

"Initially, we bought the shares at a low price and then moved the price up. For example, if the share price was RM1, we would pay a higher price for all the shares."

He said the three of them had set up a fund for this purpose.

To further push the price up, they also called up friends and remisiers to "tip" them so that the price of Suremax would increase.

"That was how it was promoted. Once the price moved up to a certain level, the market will follow," Ng said.

The witness said he and Wong first tried this method in late 2003. During this time, Ng said he made a profit of about RM200,000.

On the second occasion - in the first quarter of 2004 - Ng said he invested RM1 million in the fund, and topped it up with about RM300,000 when Wong requested.

"I lost most of my money," he told the court.

Hearing continues today.
 
Copyright 2007
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

Trio plead not guilty to scam

Wednesday October 26, 2005
Trio plead not guilty to scam
BY M. MAGESWARI

KUALA LUMPUR: Impetus Consolidated Sdn Bhd’s former group executive director Datuk Philip Wong Chee Kheong and two company directors have been charged with stock market manipulation through 153 central depository securities (CDS) accounts.

They are alleged to have created a misleading appearance with respect to the price of Suremax Group Bhd shares on the Main Board of Bursa Malaysia through the sale and purchase of its shares via the CDS accounts, which caused the stock price to rise.

Wong, 43, Impetus group chairman Ivan Ng Chong Yeng, 39, and Impetus executive director Francis Bun Lit Chun, 35, claimed trial in the Sessions Court yesterday to the charge.

They also pleaded not guilty to an alternative charge of creating a misleading appearance of active trading of Suremax shares by being indirectly involved in the sale and purchase of Suremax stock that did not cause any change in the beneficial ownership of the said shares, executed through the same CDS accounts.





Posted by Picasa






THE ACCUSED: (From left) Datuk Philip Wong Chee Keong, Ivan Ng Chong Yeng and Francis Bun Lit Chun.
They are accused of committing the offence at Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd in Exchange Square, Bukit Kewangan, between last Nov 24 and March 22 this year.

Impetus is an investment holding company while Suremax is a property development and construction firm.

This is said to be one of the biggest cases of market manipulation brought to court in Malaysia as it involved the highest number of CDS accounts at 12 stock broking firms such as CIMB Securities Sdn Bhd, Mayban Securities Sdn Bhd and K&N Kenanga Bhd.

Wong, who resigned from his post last December, and his two co-accused were given copies of the CDS accounts for their perusal before making their plea.

If found guilty, they can be fined a minimum RM1mil and jailed up to 10 years under the Securities Industry Act 1983.

DPP Ros Mawar Rozain urged the court to deny Wong bail because he had failed to turn up at the Securities Commission to assist investigations in June.

He went missing since then and the commission had to seek help from the Immigration department and the police to trace him, she said.

SC officers finally found him on Sept 21 at the Cititel Hotel, and they seized his passport.

The DPP also said that Wong had made contact with two prosecution witnesses last Friday and on Monday.

Counsel Gobind Singh Deo said Wong had co-operated with the SC throughout the investigation.

“My client called the investigating officer three times yesterday (Monday) because he wanted to go to Pulau Tioman. My client is a respected businessman and he does not need to stay in prison,” he said.

He said Wong could not have intimidated any witness because he was not charged then.

As for Ng and Bun, DPP Ros Mawar said bail should be set at RM1mil each, and the court should take note that Ng had permanent resident status in Taiwan and was without a permanent address in Malaysia.

Sessions Court judge Rosenani Abdul Rahman set bail at RM600,000 for Wong, and RM500,000 for the other two, and ordered them to surrender their passports. All three posted bail.

The hearing is fixed on Aug 1 to 4.