An article in the journal of the National Cancer Institute will send chills down the spines of those who want to simply measure the value of new cancer medicines in terms of survival (as we search for better ways to target drugs to the right patients):
Here's Lauren Neergard's article from the AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_he_me/cancer_time_lost
"The hours spent sitting in doctors' waiting rooms, in line for the CT scan, watching chemotherapy drip into veins: Battling cancer steals a lot of time — at least $2.3 billion worth for patients in the first year of treatment alone.
So says the first study to try to put a price tag to the time that people spend being treated for 11 of the most common cancers.
Even more sobering than the economic toll are the tallies, by government researchers, of the sheer hours lost to cancer care: 368 hours in that first year after diagnosis with ovarian cancer; 272 hours being treated for lung cancer, 193 hours for kidney cancer.
That doesn't count the days spent home in bed recovering from surgery or weak from chemo, just time spent actively getting care — chemo or radiation therapy, blood tests or cancer scans, surgery or checkups, driving to medical appointments and waiting your turn."
Too bad the study didn't calculate the value of time wasted listening to people explain why we can't afford new cancer drugs that aren't cost effective.
Here's a link to the article by Larry Kessler of the FDA and Scott Ramsey of the Fred Hutchinson Center
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/1/2
Here's Lauren Neergard's article from the AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_he_me/cancer_time_lost
"The hours spent sitting in doctors' waiting rooms, in line for the CT scan, watching chemotherapy drip into veins: Battling cancer steals a lot of time — at least $2.3 billion worth for patients in the first year of treatment alone.
So says the first study to try to put a price tag to the time that people spend being treated for 11 of the most common cancers.
Even more sobering than the economic toll are the tallies, by government researchers, of the sheer hours lost to cancer care: 368 hours in that first year after diagnosis with ovarian cancer; 272 hours being treated for lung cancer, 193 hours for kidney cancer.
That doesn't count the days spent home in bed recovering from surgery or weak from chemo, just time spent actively getting care — chemo or radiation therapy, blood tests or cancer scans, surgery or checkups, driving to medical appointments and waiting your turn."
Too bad the study didn't calculate the value of time wasted listening to people explain why we can't afford new cancer drugs that aren't cost effective.
Here's a link to the article by Larry Kessler of the FDA and Scott Ramsey of the Fred Hutchinson Center
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/1/2
