More Air Into the Health Care Bubble: the $30,000 a Month Cancer Drug

Over four years ago, we posted about the stratospheric prices of new drugs that seemed disproportionate to manufacturing and development costs on one hand, and the value of the drugs for patients on the other.  For example, back then we noted that thalidomide, a very old drug that notoriously was found to cause birth defects when it was given to preganant women, but that then showed promise as an anti-cancer drug, was being marketed in the US for $29 per capsule (approximately $25,000 a year), while a generic form sold in Brazil for $0.07 per capsule.

That was then, and this is now.  This week, the New York Times reported on a $30,000+  per month cancer drug. 

A newly approved chemotherapy drug will cost about $30,000 a month, a sign that the prices of cancer medicines are continuing to rise despite growing concern about health care costs.

The price of the new drug, called Folotyn, is at least triple that of other drugs that critics have said are too expensive for the benefits they offer to patients. The colon cancer drug Erbitux, for instance, costs $10,000 a month and the drug Avastin about $8,800 when used to treat lung cancer.

So what could be the rationale for this breathtaking price?

Drug Effectiveness

Could it be that the drug is extremely effective? Not according to the NY Times:

Folotyn has not yet shown an effect on longevity. In the clinical trial that led to approval of the drug, 27 percent of the 109 patients experienced a reduction in tumor size. The reductions lasted a median of 9.4 months.

But considering all the patients in the trial, only 12 percent had a reduction in tumor size that lasted for more than 14 weeks. The trial did not compare Folotyn to another drug or a placebo

A PubMed search revealed no sign that this trial had been publsiehd, and no publications reporting any controlled trials of this drug.

So at best, this drug at best may temporarily shrink tumors, although that assertion is based on evidence that has not yet been published or subject to peer-review. It does not seem that the tremendous price of the drug could be justified by tremendous benefits to patients.

Research, Development and Manufacturing

So, perhaps the drug was very difficult and expensive to create, manufacture and develop?  That does not seem to be the case, either.

Folotyn's generic name is pralatrexate. As the name suggests, it is a chemical compound very similar to the much older anti-cancer drug methotrexate. [See O'Connor OA. Pralatrexate: an emerging new agent with activity in T-cell lymphoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2006; 18: 591-597.]  It was first developed not by Allos Therapeutics, but by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Southern Research Institute, and Stanford Research Institute.  The Allos Therapeutics 2008 annual report noted that the company's total research and development expenses for the drug from 1992 through 2008 were $26.8 million (so much for the urban myth that the average drug costs $1 billion to develop.)  Based on the estimate that the drug would cost roughly $30,000/ month from the NY Times, the company could recover all the development costs of this drug after 893 patient-months of use.

Allos Therapeutics does not actually make pralotrexate, but outsources its production, according to the company's .  The firm's total yearly manufacturing costs (for several experimental drugs as well as pralotrexate) in 2008 were $6.7 million.

So it does not seem that the tremendous price of the drug could be attributed to the costs of discovering, developing, or manufacturing it.

So where would the money go?

General and Administrative Costs, Executive and Board Compensation

Allos Therapeutics seems to spend a disproportionate amount of money on marketing, general and administrative costs.  According to the 2008 report, "marketing, general and administrative expenses include costs for pre-marketing activities, corporate development, executive administration, corporate offices and related infrastructure."  In 2008, these expenses were $23 million, in one year, almost as much as the company spent over 16 years to research and develop Folotyn.

Allos Therapeutics has enriched its corporate insiders.  According to the company's 2009 proxy statement, in 2008, CEO Paul L Berns received $2,091,600 in total compensation; Chief Commercial Officer James V Caruso received $1,259,700; and Chief Medical Officer Pablo J Cagnoni received $1,408,700.  The total compensation of the five highest paid executives of the company in 2008, $5,945,500, was over 10% of the entire company's budget, $53,639,000. 

Mr Berns, who has only been with the company since 2006, owned 994,606 shares or equivalent (at a price of $6.62 per share on 4 December, 2009, worth $6,584,292).  Mr Caruso owned 272,072 shares or equivalent,and Dr Cagnoni owned 386,245.   Although two board members, Stewart Hen and Jonathan S Leff seemed to be serving by virtue of their positions with Warburg Pincus & Co, whose Private Equity VIII LP owns over 29% of Allos Therapeutics stock, Mr Hen and Mr Leff received $120,700 and $119,400 to sit on the board.

These amounts should be considered in light of the fact that the company is comparatively tiny.  Its 2008 report disclosed that it only has 81 full-time employees, of whom fully 31 "are involved in marketing, corporate development, finance, administration, and operations."  The company has never made money.  Its 2008 report noted losses of over $20 million a year in the past five years, and a total loss of over $289 million.

So one wonders if the real reason pralatrexate was priced so high was to justify the millions that top company leaders have reaped from a company that lost money over the 16 years?

Summary

The NY Times reported that people outside of Allos were not pleased with the price of Folotyn:

Dr. Lee N. Newcomer, senior vice president for oncology at the big insurer UnitedHealthcare, called the price of Folotyn 'unconscionable.' He said that Folotyn alone would cost as much as UnitedHealthcare now typically spends in total to treat a lymphoma patient from diagnosis until death. That median expenditure now, he said, is $87,000 for a little over a year of treatments.

But Dr. Newcomer said insurers would be obligated to pay for Folotyn because there were no alternatives.

Furthermore,

'This drug is not a home run,' Dr. Brad S. Kahl, a lymphoma specialist at the University of Wisconsin, said during a meeting of an advisory committee to the F.D.A. on Sept. 2. 'It’s not even a double. It’s a single.'

Saying that even a single was helpful, Dr. Kahl was part of a majority on the panel that recommended approval of the drug, 10 to 4.

But after recently learning what Allos planned to charge for Folotyn, Dr. Kahl said he was 'disappointed' by the 'excessive' price.

'It dampens my enthusiasm for using that drug,' he said. 'It creates these huge ethical quandaries about trying a drug that has a modest benefit for the average patient at enormous expense.'

So the health care bubble continues to inflate.  I suggest that the case of the ridiculous pricing of Folotyn shows how this bubble is in part generated by "compensation madness," not only "insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit," but also insiders able to become rich at the expense of even tiny, money-losing corporations.   But the bubble is also generated by the amazing acquiescence of those who pay bills at all levels, form the individuals who ultimately fund health care through salary dollars not earned, health insurance premiums, co-pays and the like, and tax payments, through the health care insurers and government agencies who did not balk at paying $25,000 a year for thalidomide in 2005, and seemingly will not balk at paying $30,000+ a year for pralatrexate in 2009.

If we really want to provide accessible health care of good quality and a reasonable cost, we will need to develop mechanisms to pay more reasonable amounts for health care goods and services.  This will require some courage facing down the corporate and organizational insiders who have made themselves very rich from the current craziness. 

NOTE (21 December, 2009) - See also comments on the Postscript blog.