Wonkbook: We're spending $107 billion on cancer drugs, but is it worth it?

By Carolyn Y. Johnson A flood of innovative cancer treatments helped fuel an 11.5 percent surge in spending on oncology drugs over the past year -- to $107 billion globally, according to a new report. But there's a crucial question the study can't quite answer: How much are patients benefiting from this expanding arsenal of high-priced drugs? The report from …   The latest economic and domestic policy from Wonkblog   (Rachel Orr/The Washington Post) By Carolyn Y. Johnson A flood of innovative cancer treatments helped fuel an 11.5 percent surge in spending on oncology drugs over the past year -- to $107 billion globally, according to a new report. But there's a crucial question the study can't quite answer: How much are patients benefiting from this expanding arsenal of high-priced drugs? The report from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics highlights 70 new cancer treatments, treating more than 20 types of tumors, all approved in the past five years. In the United States, where cancer drug spending was $37.8 billion last year, those new drugs alone account for $9.4 billion of the increase since 2010. "The highlight, to us, is to see this surge of innovation in cancer treatments. ... That's a remarkable leap forward in terms of cancer care, in relatively short order," said Murray Aitken, executive director of the IMS institute. When Aitken and colleagues look forward, they see more of the same: Close to 600 drugs are in late-stage development, and will create another wave of new treatments. But the 72 percent increase in spending over five years in the United States raises a trickier question, too: Are cancer patients getting their money's worth? As $10,000-a-month cancer drugs have become a norm, doctors have begun to push back, insisting that many drugs aren't worth the price. ADVERTISEMENT   Read the rest on Wonkblog.   Map of the day More than half of U.S. counties are declining in population. Emily Badger and Christopher Ingraham have more. Top policy tweets "Federal consumer watchdog takes aim at payday lenders with proposed rules https://t.co/P807Mvdp5g" -- @crampell "Washington D.C. City Council advances bill to enact mayor's plan for $15 minimum wage https://t.co/JrJmzNSKvv" -- @greenhousenyt "The moral imperative of our time is to invest in needy kids, including pre-k. https://t.co/ODRXuEzyFo" --@NickKristof "Viewed through the lens of its demographic crisis, Europe's migrant crisis isn't a crisis at all https://t.co/QSIWM2WAC1" -- @AnnieLowrey "Think that Big Beer merger won't impact your fave small & independent breweries? Think again https://t.co/aNtyh2cxTn" -- @craftcurious Most Recent Posts from Wonkblog Chronic marijuana use is about as bad for your health as not flossing, researchers find Chronic marijuana use has little effect on your physical health, a study finds. By Christopher Ingraham  •  Read more »   We’re spending $107 billion on cancer drugs, but is it worth it? The wave of new cancer treatments may not lengthen patients' lives much. By Carolyn Y. Johnson  •  Read more »   Dogs are so special to humans that we do something very unusual with them Your brain really believes your dog is part of the family By Ana Swanson  •  Read more »   The magic word this researcher says can get people to agree with you There's a trick to making people trust your opinion By Danielle Paquette  •  Read more »   The places in America that already have their best days behind them More than half of U.S. counties are in population decline. By Emily Badger and Christopher Ingraham  •  Read more » ADVERTISEMENT   Recommended for you   Federal Insider Federal news and policy update, in your inbox daily. Sign Up »         Share Wonkbook:       Twitter      Facebook Trouble reading? Click here to view in your browser. You received this email because you signed up for a Wonkblog newsletter. For additional free newsletters or to manage your newsletters, click here. We respect your privacy. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error or you no longer wish to receive email from The Washington Post, click here. Contact us for help. ©2016 The Washington Post, 1301 K St NW, Washington DC 20071