Every large health care system has problems, whether in the US, the UK, Canada, you name the country, you will find problems.

I am pleased however that you do mention that the drug in question is not a cure, not even close to one. It is also incredibly expensive. There is a real quandry in ALL health care systems about how to deal with these very expensive new drugs which often have mariginal therapeutic value. This is not a left wing - right wing debate. The issue has been raised by Big-Pharma itself NY Times on Avastin/bevacuzimab. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html)” To quote from this article: “Roy Vagelos, a former chief executive of Merck who is considered an elder statesman of the industry, said in a recent speech that he was troubled by a drug, which he would not name but which was a clear reference to Avastin, that costs $50,000 a year and adds four months of life. “There is a shocking disparity between value and price,” he said, “and it’s not sustainable.”

This is a tricky call, is it worth an extra four months, probably in great pain and discomfort? Nothing about this is black or white, it is very difficult. I am not sure form the article how clearly she understood the limited value of this drug.

Secondly, In the UK, whether National Health Service (NHS) can prescribe a drug, and whether the costs will be taken on by the public system, is determined by an independent body called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence). NICE appraised Avastin/bevacuzimab for metastatic breast cancer (in conjunction with Paclitaxel), but were unable to give it approval because “no evidence submission was received from the MANUFACTURER or sponsor of the technology”. I.e. it appears that the supplier did not provide the necessary information to go ahead with the proper evaluation. Again, this makes the whole messay affair very complex.