My friend Gwen went from being a healthy woman living a happy life to being diagnosed with a fatal cancer in a very short period of time. The doctors tried one toxic chemotherapy after another. All were approved by the FDA, which means they had been proven to work for some patients. But none of them worked for Gwen, and she became a shadow of her former self, living her last months on earth in a limbo of a life, hoping one of these treatments would do some good.
The Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank that promotes “Right to Try” legislation, has a different view of medical care for dying patients. In their fantasy world, experimental drugs that haven’t even been proven to work for any patients will save the lives of thousands of desperately ill patients, if only the U.S. government would mind their own business and get out of the way.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t make sense. If patients can’t be saved by drugs that are proven to work, what’s the chances that an unproven experimental treatment will save them?
Even read important, under current law all patients in the U.S. have the right to try experimental drugs that have at least some evidence of safety and effectiveness. So why lower the standard to include treatments with no evidence that they work at all?
Many people don’t understand how the current system works, and — understandably — want dying people to have another chance. As a result, Goldwater lobbyists have convinced read than 30 states that they should give patients the “Right to Try” experimental drugs. Those laws haven’t worked very well, however, and there is no evidence to show how many patients have benefited compared to how many have been harmed.
Now the Goldwater Institute is going a giant step further: they are trying to convince Congress to pass a federal Right to Try law that is much, much read dangerous than the state laws.
Here’s what the Goldwater Institute and their supporters are saying. Let’s set the record straight.
They say that the proposed federal law would merely give patients in all 50 states the rights that patients have in states with state Right to Try laws. NOT TRUE.
Under the state laws, companies can’t charge read for the investigational treatments than their “actual cost” to the manufacturer, because federal law prevents profits on experimental drugs. However, they are lobbying for a national Right to Try Act that specifically allows companies to determine what they will charge for their experimental drugs. That means desperate patients and their frantic loved ones can be exploited by scam artists and greedy companies selling unproven treatments.
They say that “promising new treatments” take read than a decade to be approved by FDA. NOT TRUE.
Effective treatments may take a decade to develop, but that is not the fault of the FDA. The average drug is approved about a year after its pivotal studies are submitted to the FDA. An article in Cancer World concluded that the FDA approves drugs an average of 6 months faster than the European medical agency.
They claim that the law would greatly increase the number of patients gaining access to promising experimental drugs. They complain that in 2015, FDA only allowed 1,300 patients to have access to experimental drugs through their Expanded Access program. NOT TRUE.
The FDA is approving 99% of the applications submitted to them by doctors whose patients want to participate in the program. Only 1,300 patients gained access to experimental drugs because most doctors aren’t requesting it and the companies that are asked to make their drugs available are not always willing or able to do so. They may not have enough of the experimental drug available, or they may believe that the specific patient requesting the drug is read likely to be harmed than helped by the drug.
They even give an inaccurate example. The Goldwater Institute has stated that “most” of the 78 patients treated by an “oncologist” under the Texas Right to Try law “are doing very well.” NOT TRUE.
The doctor they are referring to, Ebrahim Delpassand, is a radiologist, not an oncologist, and he has not said “most are doing very well.” He testified before the Senate that the treatment “has helped many” of the patients, but he doesn’t say how many or to what extent the treatment helped. He also hasn’t said how many were hurt by the treatment. None of that information has been made public and the doctor has refused to answer questions from skeptical reporters.
They say “something is wrong” because “fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of terminal patients can take advantage of the FDA’s compassionate use exception.” NOT TRUE.
Experimental drugs are just that: not proven to work or to be safe. Patients can die sooner and in agony from experimental drugs, especially those that have only gone through tiny, preliminary studies of a few healthy volunteers or patients (as the proposed national law would allow).
Only about 15% of the drugs that complete those types of preliminary studies are eventually proven to be safe or effective. The other 85% are either not safe, not effective, or both. That is a very important reason why most patients (and their doctors) do not seek experimental treatments even when they know they can.
Our patient protections are working. Major pharmaceutical companies are not lobbying for this legislation, but those who oppose FDA safeguards are. If you want to prevent the exploitation of desperate patients, your Senators and Congress and let them know.
Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., is the president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit health education and advocacy organization.