|
There have been a lot of these now
And herceptin always comes out to be cost effective.
The cost analyses that have been done on the FinnHer study have shown that it is actually cost saving (meaning that there is really no economic reason to reserve herceptin for patients with secondaries since any health care provider that does will end up losing money by having to provide it later). I suppose that is why New Zealand, which is rather backward on breast cancer, has been so quick to adopt it. I would like to see the short treatments tested a bit more, if only because in less wealth countries the cost of a full year prevents women from getting herceptin.
|