NEWS

Can Treatment Costs Be Tamed?

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  25 Mar 2011:
Vol. 331, Issue 6024, pp. 1545-1547
DOI: 10.1126/science.331.6024.1545

You are currently viewing the summary.

View Full Text

Log in to view the full text

Log in through your institution

Log in through your institution

Summary

Over the past 3 decades, total U.S. spending on cancer care has more than quadrupled, reaching $125 billion last year, or 5% of the nation's medical bill, according to a recent estimate. By 2020, it could grow by as much as 66%, to $207 billion. Multiple forces are driving the spiral: a growing and aging population, more people living longer with cancer, and new "personalized," or "targeted," therapies that can come with sticker-shock prices of $50,000 or more per patient. New and more costly, however, haven't necessarily meant better. Although targeted treatments have helped improve survival rates for many cancers, some extend life for just a few weeks or months (see p. 1542). And the prices can be sobering: more than $1.2 million to extend a lung cancer patient's life for 1 year in one scenario involving a costly but common drug. That example is unusual, but such numbers have sparked a growing—and sometimes feisty—debate over how best to calculate the benefits of new cancer treatments, whether their use will lower or raise per-patient expenses, and who should decide whether using them is worth the cost.

  • * David Malakoff is a writer in Alexandria, Virginia.