Oncotype
I was diagnosed with stage 2 in December and decided to have to Oncotype test to determine whether chemo would be of benefit. I'm 44, have 2 young girls and I just didn't want chemo unless there was g...
Forum Discussion
@MvB Never too late for this hot potato.
I couldn't agree with you more if I tried! This is the exact point I make when arguing this case. Put me in front of the Minister for Health! Isn't it basic maths??
There's a group of people who clearly need chemo, there's a group of people who clearly don't, and in between there's a group in a grey area. Currently most of those people have chemotherapy. However a recent comprehensive study has found that 70% of that group don't need chemo.
Add up the cost of all that chemo and as one in three to four people on chemo develop febrile neutropenia, add the cost of the treatment for that, plus the occupation of the hospital bed, the staffing, the loss to the economy because the person is off work. Then add the cost of the post chemo programmes to rebuild our strength, coping with peripheral neuropathy and all the other permanent damage. Surely the cost of subsidising the test dwarfs in comparison to subsidising all the rest? And that's purely an economic argument; it doesn't touch on the suffering of the patient and their families.
I am happy to be told otherwise, but this seems like such a sensible, logical and compassionate no brainer. I just don't get it. The health system always needs more money. It's hard to see how this wouldn't save it money.
I couldn't agree with you more if I tried! This is the exact point I make when arguing this case. Put me in front of the Minister for Health! Isn't it basic maths??
There's a group of people who clearly need chemo, there's a group of people who clearly don't, and in between there's a group in a grey area. Currently most of those people have chemotherapy. However a recent comprehensive study has found that 70% of that group don't need chemo.
Add up the cost of all that chemo and as one in three to four people on chemo develop febrile neutropenia, add the cost of the treatment for that, plus the occupation of the hospital bed, the staffing, the loss to the economy because the person is off work. Then add the cost of the post chemo programmes to rebuild our strength, coping with peripheral neuropathy and all the other permanent damage. Surely the cost of subsidising the test dwarfs in comparison to subsidising all the rest? And that's purely an economic argument; it doesn't touch on the suffering of the patient and their families.
I am happy to be told otherwise, but this seems like such a sensible, logical and compassionate no brainer. I just don't get it. The health system always needs more money. It's hard to see how this wouldn't save it money.