The following statement has just been released by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation:

DALLAS – February 3, 2012 – We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.  The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.  We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair. (more…)

Recently, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation announced that it would longer offer funds and grants to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion mill operator. This decision has sent Planned Parenthood over the edge of both sanity and civility with a new fundraising letter that dispenses with its past staid talk about women’s healthcare and goes straight for thuggish threats of retaliation, finger pointing, and attacks on other women.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, a well known breast cancer-fighting charity, decided to withhold further donations to the abortion provider for several reasons, one of which is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress for violating various state abortion laws.

Last month, the Associated Press reported Komen’s new criteria and why it is excluding PP. “Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities,” the report said. “According to Komen, this applies to Planned Parenthood because it’s the focus of an inquiry launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., seeking to determine whether public money was improperly spent on abortions.”

The foundation gave more than $569,000 to Planned Parenthood in 2010. (more…)

From AFP:

US health officials on Friday revoked the authorization of Roche’s Avastin for breast cancer treatment, saying it concluded the drug had “not been shown to be safe and effective for that use.”

(more…)

On June 28^th and 29^th in Silver Spring, Maryland, cancer patients and their families will gather in protest of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) effort to ration the late-stage breast cancer drug Avastin.  These patients credit the drug for extending their lives well beyond what was to be expected.

Unfortunately for patients, the FDA has adopted a Marxist position on the issue – not Karl Marx but Groucho Marx.  Groucho Marx once quipped, “who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”

Supporters of the FDA’s proposal to limit access to the drug to those who can pay for it out of pocket, argue that since the drug does not affect all patients the same way, the government should save health care costs by moving to deny insurance coverage.  That is the basis of rationing and the basis of ObamaCare.

The FDA and their apologists like oncologist Fred Tucker, who took to the New York Times to defend the agency, argue the law of averages ignoring the reality that some patients respond better than others.  Greg Conko brilliantly responded to their arguments at OpenMarkets.org in an article entitled “The Medium is not the Message.”

Conko retorted:

Technocrats, including Dr. Tucker, have applauded the decision, arguing that Avastin doesn’t work very well, and that it has significant side effects. On the other side are patient advocates and thousands of women who have benefited from the drug, who argue that it’s unfair for the agency to take away an option for patients who are at risk of dying. ”We want to be sure that women who are using Avastin, and for whom it is working, can continue to have access to it,” said Elizabeth Thompson, president of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The real question ought to be, who gets to decide?

(more…)

It’s not often that the outcome of a protest could be a life or death decision, but that is the position that thousands of women with breast cancer find themselves thanks to a proposal by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to limit access to the drug Avastin only to those who can afford to pay for it out of their own pocket.

Not many can.

There are thousands of women who rely on the drug for their survival. Without it, they will die. That fact has prompted a small businessman from Michigan to put his life on hold to fight “the man.” In this case, “the man” is the bureaucrats at the FDA who are on a mission to cut health care costs. If their proposal to “de-label” Avastin becomes reality, Medicare and private insurance companies will no longer have to cover the cost of the drug. In the eyes of ObamaCare proponents – society wins.

But families lose. In fact, the impact on families will be devastating – a death sentence says Terry Kalley, the husband of a breast cancer patient who relies on Avastin to live.

(more…)

It doesn’t take a soothsayer to know that if ObamaCare and the push toward government-run health care continue, America will begin to ration drugs and treatment for the sick and the elderly.

In fact, it may be too late.  Rationing is creeping into the system already.

The Wall Street Journal highlights the latest efforts to “end the cost curve,” this time in Washington State where bureaucrats could decide whether it is “too expensive” to treat kids with diabetes. The Journal in a critical editorial notes:

In 2006, Washington created a board to scrutinize the cost-effectiveness of various surgeries and treatments, known as the Health Technology Assessment program. At a hearing today, the panel will debate glucose monitoring for diabetic children under 18. In other words, the board is targeting the fundamental standard of diabetes care that has been the established medical consensus for at least three decades.

This state issue deserves far more scrutiny, if only because ObamaCare and the stimulus devoted billions of dollars to comparative effectiveness research. As President Obama has so often put it, the idea is to pit Treatment X against Treatment Y and find out “what works and what doesn’t.” In theory, it sounds great. But the Health Technology Assessment is an example of how comparative effectiveness will work in the real world, as the political system tries to find ways to restrict or limit treatment to control entitlement spending.

Of course, Washington State’s effort to reduce the cost of health care is the tip of the rationing iceberg.

(more…)

The socialists and rationers at the European Union appear to be more sensitive to the plight of breast cancer patients that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to implement President Obama’s mandate to “reduce the cost of health care.”

In June 2010, a subpanel at the FDA recommended that the late-stage cancer drug Avastin be denied insurance and Medicare coverage for breast cancer patients.  Cost was specifically mentioned as a reason for the decision.  “De-labeling” the drug will save Medicare the burden of paying for the drug that can run $80,000 a year.

Despite protests from thousands of breast cancer patients who cannot afford the treatment without insurance, the FDA approved the panel’s recommendation in December.  Patient groups like Susan B. Komen and Cancer101 have now entered the ring arguing that decision – if it becomes final – will have dramatic implications for the future of our health care system.  They are pleading for the FDA to reverse itself.

Now the European Union health care advisory committee– a bastion of socialist medicine and open rationing of care – has found that Avastin in combination with chemotherapy helps women with metastatic breast cancer live longer without their disease worsening.  That is exactly what American cancer patients and doctors have said all along.

(more…)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving to “de-label” Avastin, the late-stage cancer drug for breast cancer patients. If successful, the FDA would allow Medicare and private insurance to deny coverage for the drug – even for patients who have relied on the drug to live.

The FDA has denied that the cost of the drug played a role in their decision but the evidence is mounting that is not the case.  During initial consideration of the decision an FDA advisor specifically cited the cost of the drug as the reason for revocation.  The drug costs $80,000 a year and allowing Medicare to deny coverage for the cost would “reduce the cost of health care,” as President Obama has demanded.

The FDA and their supporters deny cost is the basis of the decision.  George Soros’ Media Matters denounced the rationing claim proclaiming that the drug does not “does not significantly prolong life.”

Significantly? Is six months, the average time an Avastin patient gets in extended life, “significant”?  Is one year?  What about the cases of the “super responders,” the women like Erin Howarth, who have taken Avastin for years and credit the drug for saving their life?

(more…)

The cancer drug Avastin has become ground zero in the debate of the future of our health care system. Will drugs and treatments be rationed under a government-run system? Will patients have the same access and options as they do under our current plan? Will patients be subject to a “cost-benefit” analysis by government bureaucrats – like in other countries — when deciding what drugs the government will cover and what drugs they won’t?

Recent actions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to “de-label” the late stage cancer drug raise these and other issues critical to the future of our health care system. The FDA proposal would essentially allow Medicare and other insurance plans, including private ones – to tell patients they will need to cover the cost of the treatment on their own. There would no longer be an obligation to pay for treatment. If you want Avastin as an option in your efforts to fight breast cancer, you would have to pay for it. And what if you cannot afford the estimated $80,000 a year for treatment? The FDA won’t answer that question.

The maker of the drug has petitioned the FDA for a hearing on their actions and have yet to be granted even the ability to make their case. But they have strong advocates in their corner, including a number of influential patient advocacy groups that fear the FDA’s decision will limit patient and doctors choices in the future.

Among those that have critically weighed in against the FDA include the Susan Komen Foundation, Cancer101, the Colon Cancer Alliance and the Cancer Support Community. They understand the stakes and see the decision as a critical precedent that will change our health care system dramatically – and not for the better — if the FDA moves forward.

(more…)

The recent ruling by a federal judge invalidating Obamacare in its entirety was a resounding victory for opponents of the sweeping law. It isn’t though, by itself, the end of the fight. The final determination of the constitutionality of Obamacare could take months or even years. The efforts to repeal Obamacare can’t simply wait for the courts. Continued action is needed now.

During the recent House vote, only three Democrats voted withRepublicans to repeal ObamaCare – less than the 13 who remain in Congress who opposed the original legislation. Typical of their response was Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC). Kissell voted against ObamaCare but then voted against its repeal – a tacit endorsement of the legislation.

Kissell told McClatchy News Service that he would rather “chip away” at the legislation.  Okay. The time has come to start chipping.

It’s clear that the repeal vote is essentially the floor. Efforts to “chip away” at the bill will garner more support than the repeal vote, as Kissell and his ilk will vote for Republican efforts to “replace” the bill. Jason Altmire (D-PA) opposed the bill and repeal saying, “We think, by in large, it was a bad bill. It did more harm than good. But to repeal it all, including the few provisions that were beneficial, just doesn’t make sense.”

Let the chipping begin.

(more…)

The House of Representatives moved quickly to pass legislation to repeal the President’s Health Care Reform measures but for breast cancer patients, repeal might not come soon enough.

Breast cancer patients are among the initial victims of the ObamaCare mindset where cost of treatment trumps the effectiveness of treatment. Thanks to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the life-extending drug Avastin may no longer be an option for breast cancer patients – despite evidence of its effectiveness and testimony of women—and their doctors– who believe they survive solely because of the drug.

The FDA seems intent on “de-lableing” the drug – a move that would allow insurance companies and Medicare to deny coverage for the drug. Even though the FDA is not charged with considering the cost of a drug when determining its availability, it is apparent they did. Jean Grem of the University of Nebraska explained her anti-Avastin vote by observing, “We aren’t supposed to talk about cost, but that’s another issue.”

(more…)

House Republicans lived up to a primary campaign promise when they voted to repeal ObamaCare by a vote of 245-189, with three Democrats joining the effort. Despite the headlines and congratulatory news releases, the real work is just beginning. Even after the vote, the forces of rationing are still firmly in control of our government and it’s health care policy. The time has come to roll up their sleeves and get creative to find ways to repeal, defund, and delay imposition of the government health care scheme that is in its first stages of implementation.

The government’s mandate to “reverse the health care cost curve” is taking over policy decisions. Rather than mandating “cures” the government is mandating “cost” as the primary driver of our health care policy. As such, patients are being denied access to critical drugs they need to survive. While the vote to repeal ObamaCare is a critical first step, Congress needs to act – and quickly – to save the lives of patients like Christy Turnage.

Turnage is a breast cancer patient who relies on Avastin to survive. The drug is not cheap but Turnage is among a group of “super responders” whose life depends on the availability of the drug. But the FDA has other ideas. Cost, which has never been considered in the approval process, was a factor in the decision whether to “de-label” the drug. De-labeling Avastin and other expensive drugs mean that the rich will have access to it while Medicare patients and those who rely on private insurance will be denied coverage.

(more…)

Shortly after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it would cut off late-stage breast cancer patients from Avastin, the Obama Administration announced it would create “end of life counseling” program for Medicare patients. How convenient. The government is sentencing women to death but will try to make them feel better about it.

It’s no surprise that the announcement of the creation of “end of life counseling” comes from the rationer-in-chief Donald Berwick — the unconfirmed head of the Office of Medicare and Medicaid Services. Berwick has said that “Cynics beware, I am romantic about the [British] National Health Service, I love it.” Here’s another Berwick quote: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

It’s clear the bureaucrats have begun to ration care with their “eyes open” but the question is the American people seeing what is happening?

For decades, America was not only the golden land of opportunity; it was the place where the sick would come for cutting edge treatments that could not be found anywhere else. The socialist health care systems of Europe could not save your life, but a trip to America often could. Americans took this for granted. But we cannot anymore.

(more…)

The reaction to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rationing scheme for late-stage cancer drugs has been met with a swift reaction from both sides of the political aisle. Even liberal Democrats who voted to implement ObamaCare have voiced critical objections to the FDA’s denial of Avastin for breast cancer patients. Even the Susan Komen Foundation for a Cure raised concerns.

But one of the more interesting aspects of the FDA’s scheme is the specious claim that Avastin does not work. But on the same day of the ill-advised decision, the FDA’s European counterpart — representing the government-run health care systems in the European Union – issued a statement approving Avastin for metastatic breast cancer concluding that the “benefits continue to outweigh the risks, because the available data have convincingly shown to prolong progression-free survival of breast cancer patients without a negative effect on the overall survival.”

This evidence certainly undercuts the FDA’s claims. Europe’s government-run health care systems openly ration drugs based on cost concerns. The British, for example, have rationed Avastin and admitted the decision was based solely on cost considerations. With a “push-button” rationing system, the fact that the Europeans recognize the benefit of the drug raises further questions about the true reasons for the FDA’s decision to deny patients and doctors access to the drug.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

Federal health authorities are recommending the blockbuster drug Avastin no longer be used to treat breast cancer, saying recent studies failed to show the drug’s original promise to help slow the disease.

The Food and Drug Administration’s decision is supported by many cancer experts but is sure to draw resistance from cancer patients and some doctors who fiercely defend the drug and say it should remain available.

(more…)

Sources on Capitol Hill have informed Capitol Confidential that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will indeed begin rationing late-stage cancer drugs.  The FDA will make an 11am (EDT) announcement that it will begin denying Avastin to breast cancer patients but will graciously offer the creator of the drug a final show trial of a hearing in 60 days.

The FDA will be judge, jury and executioner.  Unfortunately, the victims of breast cancer will be the ones punished and harmed.

The FDA has never before limited access to a drug based upon cost considerations.  Yet there are some within the agency that are intent on breaking new ground to justify a rationing regime designed to drive down the cost of health care.  Avastin is the test case.  There is no evidence that the pending show trial will temper their enthusiasm for thie rationing scheme.

In essence, the Avastin decision is the first battle in ObamaCare.  Opponents of ObamaCare warned of the implications of a government take-over of our health care system — first and foremost was rationing.  And that is what has happened.

(more…)

As House Republicans prepare to take the reigns, it’s clear that incoming House Government Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa is taking his responsibilities seriously.  National Journal reports that Issa is doubling his investigation staff and is planning a hearing a day on Obama Administration abuses.  Potential hearings include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Medicare fraud, wasteful stimulus money and hopefully attempts to ration drugs and treatments under ObamaCare.

Within three weeks, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to decide whether breast cancer patients be denied access to the life-extending drug Avastin because of its cost.  The FDA does not have the authority to deny access to drugs based upon cost but that is what is happening.  During deliberations, Jean Grem let the cat out of the bag when she explained her anti-Avastin vote by observing, “We aren’t supposed to talk about cost, but that’s another issue.”

Calling Mr. Issa.

What we have here is clear – it is government attempting to ration drugs based upon their cost.  Does the FDA have the authority to take such action?  It’s clear the answer is no.  But as government begins to ratchet the cost curve on heath care down, government agencies will attempt to deny care and treatment to the sick and elderly in order to save money – if we let them.

(more…)

When patients, doctors and cancer treatment centers plead with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to continue to allow late-stage breast cancer patients to use life-extending drug Avastin as part of their treatment, it’s time to stand up and take notice.

This week the National Comprehensive Cancer Network — a group of leading cancer centers — reaffirmed its existing recommendation that the drug be used for women with advanced breast cancer. The group strongly believes that women with breast cancer enjoy a better quality of life while on the drug. But if supporters of ObamaCare have their way, breast cancer patients will be denied insurance coverage for the drug and will be forced to pay out of pocket for its benefits.

BigGovernment.com was the first to alert readers to an ominous proposal working its way through the bowels of the FDA. The proposal would change the objective standard for drug approval to a subjective standard that could take the price of the drug into account.

The new “risk-benefit” ratio but begs the question – benefit to whom — the patient or the government bean counters charged by the president to bend the cost curve?

(more…)

In Washington, DC, if you want to release news so it doesn’t get much coverage, do it Friday afternoon. If you want to really stick it to the American people, do it after Election Day. Apparently, the Food and Drug Administration is following the playbook.

Late Friday, the FDA announced it had postponed for 90 days — and until after the Election — a decision whether to ration the later stage cancer drug Avastin based on cost. With poll numbers that 60 Plus rolled out earlier in the week this is not a shock.

For the first time, an FDA sub-panel used cost as a factor in consideration of drug approval — opening the door to rationing for Avastin and other cutting edge drugs. The American people reject rationing. They do not want doctor’s choices limited by cost — undermining the basic premise of ObamaCare and when drugs are rejected because of their price tag, that is rationing. (more…)

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that Americans reject rationing of medical care. The Obama Administration denied it would ever happen. They lied. The effort to ration late stage cancer drugs based upon their costs is underway in the case of Avastin. 60 Plus is rightly concerned about the impact that this decision will have down the road on the availability of any and all treatment options for seniors.

And apparently most of America shares their concern.

60 Plus and Logos Communications has just come out of the field with an extensive survey about health care and rationing. The results are extraordinary. In fact, opposition to rationing is so deep, swing voters — both seniors and women — are in open revolt over the pending FDA decision.

This is an issue that cuts across party lines. It cuts across race, age and philosophy. Look at these numbers:

– 47% of registered American voters oppose the recently passed healthcare reform law, compared to 41% who support it. (Note: the sample is much more favorable to ObamaCare than most national polls).

– 56% of registered American voters believe the new healthcare reform law will lead to so-called “rationing” of care. 26% disagree. Even 2008 Obama voters have their doubts: 39% believe it is likely to lead to rationing; 39% do not.

– 82% believe that cost-effectiveness is NOT a justification for rationing, agreeing with the statement, “As a matter of principle, the government should not ration care or deny treatment options based on what it calls “cost-effectiveness.” I don”t trust the government to put a cost on human life.”” Only 7% disagree.

(more…)