One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin,
a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such
cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last
year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the
rest of her publicly financed treatment.
By December, she had
raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But
then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements
before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.
looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists
slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that
service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.
“I said, ‘Where
does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to
pay for everything’ ” – in other words, for all her cancer treatment,
far more than she could afford.
Officials said that allowing
Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement
government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by
giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.
I'm not saying Obama wants to do this, I am saying there are some unacceptable features of Britain's NHS (update: the policy was reversed in 2008). The point is not to compare those features to the problems with the U.S. system. The point is that everyone is gainsaying the Hawking example without recognizing there have been other people in similar predicaments. How could such a policy ever have been adopted in the first place? This is just a reminder, it's not a prompt for you to repeat the familiar story that the U.S. pays more without getting better health care outcomes.
If you want to do a broader comparison, here is more on the NHS and drugs. Did you know that Rilutek, the main drug (its efficacy is debated) for treating ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), has been available in the UK since 1997. It was approved by the FDA in 1995 though covered by Medicare only after the prescription drug bill. As of 2004, single-payer system New Zealand wasn't offering the drug at all. If you're wondering, single-payer Canada had approval of the drug in 2000, but with partial early usage in 1995.
By the way, Medicare does cover ALS, even if you're not 65, but various important forms of home adaptation and assistance are left uncovered, as is often the case with Medicare. It seems the U.S. is the best place for drugs but quite possibly not the best coverage overall for ALS. If you're looking for one good health care reform, consider dropping the reimbursement rate penalty for home care.
My knowledge of ALS-related issues is not extensive, but aren't such comparisons more interesting than reading another blog post bashing idiots? The more you bash the idiots, the more you are playing into the hands of…the idiots.