penguinsix

For many who are asking just how expensive health care can be, and whether they really need insurance for their parents who are moving over here, I would encourage them to read this article from Business Week. It details the cost of treating a person with cancer over the last seven years, and the huge medical bills incurred in the last 24 months prior to his death. Total bill: $618,616, of which most came in the last two years.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/ma...0032321836.htm

God forbid you are having to pay these charges out of pocket, or are liable for them as the 'sponsor' of your elderly parents. Something worth reading if you are thinking of sponsoring your parents without some form of health care while they are here.

ChocolateBabz

Great article - I was talking about Healthcare with my American friends at the weekend about healthcare UK v US and they are just as frustrated and confused with their health insurance as we are especially the billing aspects. Regardless of Obama's plans the whole system needs an overhaul so that people know what they are covered for, how much they are billed and that someone is actually paying attention to how you are treated and that you are not just being used as a cash cow.

Mallory

It depends on how badly you want treatment, to try and extend your life. Avastin has not been approved by the NHS for treatment of kidney cancer, as it's too expensive.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161968.php

Elvira

Avastin can increase progression free survival but does not increase overall survival - patients do not live longer. Plus it has significant side effects. AFAIK, when voting on some of its indications, the FDA members were split on whether to approve or not:

In February 2008, the FDA approved a new drug, Avastin, for the treatment of breast cancer that has metastasized. ... This decision to approve Avastin was somewhat surprising. In December, an FDA advisory committee had recommended that the FDA not approve the drug. The vote, though was close -- 5 to 4.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/f...ncer-treatment

fatbrit

Clutching at straws!

Mallory

There was a lot of uproar about breast cancer patients not being able to receive Avastin in the UK, and they finally buckled and allowed its use. It's sad for the kidney cancer folks though that they don't get the same drug as is given to the breast cancer patients.

The use of these experimental drugs, no matter what the cost, obviously leads to more and better treatment, so they cannot be pushed to the side.

It's a case of two different systems, where you can grasp at straws and pay for it in the US, or you can be denied the treatment and die sooner in the UK.

Obviously, no system is great - it depends on whether you are the unlucky person to have kidney cancer. Life is a beach sometimes.

dbj1000

My mother's experience with Herceptin and Roche's PR/Marketing group illustrates just how far drug companies will go to manipulate public opinion and manufacture public outrage when one of their expensive new drugs is not approved by the NHS:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...dhealth.health

fatbrit

Still clutching at straws.

Elvira

The UK participates in clinical trials of experimental drugs.

AFAIK Avastin has not shown any significant survival benefits.

The lower survival rates in the UK are largely due to late diagnosis, which is partly due to patients ignoring symptoms. I do wish both the NHS and patients were more proactive when it comes to early diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

However, over a lifetime, the UK system is surely preferable. I never, ever worried about health care before I moved to the US. We have good insurance - but what good is that to our sons once they have to come off our insurance?

Mallory

Clutching at straws, when you have cancer, is very common. Everyone wants to survive a little bit longer. It's human - but it can be very expensive. Depends on how deep your loved ones pockets are.

fatbrit

You're clutching at straws to defend a totally corrupt health care system. There is no doubt that most would be better off in a country with universal health care when suffering from a disease like cancer. It's not even worth debating it's so bloody obvious!

Mallory

I'm all for universal health care.

If I had cancer I would clutch at straws.

NAR14

Well said.

Englishmum

I concur - with our insurance health cover stops as soon as our son reaches the age of 23. (We were with Aetna and now BUPA International which contracts out to United Healthcare in the US, but as soon as ones child is 23, they're kicked off the insurance).

I have no idea what most Americans do at this stage. My son is a student and would like go on to do a Masters....but what do young adults do about getting affordable and adequate/decent health coverage? I know that the universities have to offer some kind of insurance, but it seems quite limited although my son hasn't tried to claim for anything on it.

AmerLisa

Well said