Log in to post a reply
Mar 14, 2009 01:29PM
When I stop and take a chemo break, my onc wants me to continue with Herceptin because she strongly believes it still continues to work with me. Each time I've taken a chemo break, herceptin has kept me stable for as little as 6 months and as long as a year. The government told her that because I'm metastatic and I went back on chemo again after mild progression, Herceptin obviously stopped working for me so why spend more money if it's not going to work after chemo. Point taken, but everyone's different and I think this should be addressed on a case by case basis. I don't think they're taking my prior history into account.
My onc suspects I have a new primary and not a metastatic spread. If this is the case, they may relent. I suppose that puts me into the category of having a "newly diagnosed cancer". Weird - I don't understand it.
My guess is that the government is cracking down because of the recession and trying to cut costs. It sounds drastic but it's cheaper for them if I'm dead. That's a lot of money to spend on one person a year. My hubby calls me a pragmatist.
I don't feel as though it's the government's responsibility to pay for my medicine. I just wish that they made their decisions less heavy handedly. Why pick and choose? Because insurance assumes that the government pays 100% of the time, there's no safety net in place. My insurance covers non-IV meds (cause the government covers this), hospital stays, etc.
I'm not going to panic yet, it doesn't do my healing any good.
Sorry for the long post, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Cheryl - Mets dx Aug/06 (lungs, liver, bones, abdomen)
12/23/2003, IDC, 5cm, Stage IV, Grade 2, 4/10 nodes, ER-/PR-, HER2+