Inequalities in Treatment Access for Australian Asbestos Victims
Approximately 600 Australians are diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma each year, yet not all of them have the same access to necessary treatment and palliative care.
A new report by the Allen Consulting Group has found "extreme inequalities" in the treatment access experienced by mesothelioma patients in different parts of Australia, particularly access to the drug Alimta. The report, commissioned by the Asbestos Diseases Foundation and drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, maker of Alimta, shows that only half of Australians suffering with mesothelioma have access to the drug which has been shown to reduce pain and prolong life by 2-3 months. According to the report, approximately "30 to 50 percent of the mesothelioma patients who would benefit from a course of Alimta experience problems obtaining subsidized or compensated access to the treatment."
The report demonstrated a huge variation in subsidized access among different Australian states. Specifically, government subsidy programs are currently in place in New South Wales and Western Australia, but none exist in the states of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. In addition, access to appropriate treatment may vary depending on the location and manner of exposure to asbestos, and whether that exposure can be proven. The result is that some patients in NSW are receiving fully subsidized chemotherapy treatments while up to 400 other patients in other parts of the country are not. For those mesothelioma sufferers who are not receiving treatment subsidies, it can cost upwards of $20,000 for each cycle of treatment.
Barry Robson, president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation hopes that the newly released report will move the Federal Government to add Alimta to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, increasing access for mesothelioma victims. The drug is currently listed for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer, but has not been approved for mesothelioma funding on the grounds that it is not "cost effective".
