Times Article Followup
What a discussion the NY Times article generated! The story is all over the web, in blogs and sites I would never have imagined - even political ones! One blog entry was titled "Sicko Personified" and I think that sums it up quite nicely. People - not just lymphoma patients - seem to be surprised that money could influence treatment recommendations, but indeed they do.
It is interesting that reporters must disclose financial interests of doctors they quote. Yet doctors are not required to disclose their financial incentives, or lack thereof, to patients when recommending treatments. What's wrong with this picture?
I was also astounded by Dr. Connors' statements in the article. He says that RIT is difficult to oversee because the treatment must be coordinated with administering hospitals. Unfortunately, this very excuse has been made by many others and it's nothing more than a smokescreen. Here's why: RIT is coordinated twice. Chemotherapy and Rituxan also require coordination - and several times.
And frankly, if I thought my doctor was too lazy to coordinate my treatment, I'd run as far and fast as I could. My husband, who is a homebuilder, spends countless hours coordinating all the trades, subcontractors, etc. to build every home. Our clients are concerned only about their new homes, not how much time or effort Alex spends coordinating with others to get them built. The same goes for patients. We don't care about how much effort goes into coordinating our treatments but that we have the best possible ones for our conditions. We also have every right to expect our doctors to do everything within their power and knowledge to help us heal, and if that means coordinating treatment with others, so be it. It's part of their job description!
Dr. Connors also commented, "The doctors looking after people tend to turn to tools they themselves know how to use and are familiar with." That, too, is unfortunately true, and it's a mindset that prevents medicine from advancing as quickly as it could and should. Bexxar and Zevalin have been available for five years, yet the drugs have reached only 5 to 10 percent of patients eligible for it. How can the war on cancer ever be won if new and better treatments are shunned in favor of ones that doctors are more familiar with? Again, it is their job to make themselves familiar with new and better treatments!
Finally, it has often been stated that Bexxar and Zevalin have not been proven to prolong survival compared to other therapies. That statement is true but needs clarification. Bexxar and Zevalin have not been compared head-to-head to other therapies, but neither have many other treatments for many types of illnesses. As an example, Rituxan was widely embraced in combination with chemotherapy or as maintenance therapy well before it was approved for either use, well before it was compared head-to-head with other therapies and before any survival advantage was shown. Even now, there is little to show that Rituxan maintenance increases survival, and yet it is widely prescribed - and at a handsome profit.
I suppose I'm on a roll this morning, but those of us who walk into our doctors' office needing help should be made aware of all our options. I know from personal experience how agonizing lymphoma is, and when I think that 18,000 to 20,000 people a year might get RIT but don't, my heart aches - so if I sound a little frustrated, it's because I am.
On a much happier note, the results of my scan this past Monday show that I remain in perfect health. I am 4 years, 9 months, and 8 days past lymphoma, thanks to RIT!!!!!!
Betsy :))