Single drug that yields only several months of gain in life expectancy [46?8]. This implies a cost-effectiveness number in many cases of several hundred thousand dollars for an extra year of life. It would not be obvious that cost-effectiveness numbers at that level represent either a wise or a just expenditure of limited societal resources. It is also justice-relevant that the AIDS drugs are very effective. They keep HIV at bay (and the patient reasonably healthy) for years and years. Targeted therapies are most often only very marginally effective; median gains in life expectancy relatively rarely get beyond one year. Still a defender of these targeted therapies might argue that from the point of view of aggregated social costs per patient, the AIDS regimen can cost 600,000 if individuals gain twenty extra years of life. In contrast, cancer patients on current single targeted agents might gain less than an extra year of life, but the social cost will be only 100,000. Then again, if we start using multiple targeted therapies in combination and in succession at a cost of 200,000 per combination per year for three years, we would have equaled the AIDS combination figure. That would suggest that these targeted therapies are much less socially productive of saved life years than current AIDS regimens. This does not yield the moral judgmentJ. Pers. Med. 2013,that funding these targeted therapies for cancer is unjust. But it does suggest that they ought (for reasons of equity and order HIV-1 integrase inhibitor 2 efficiency) to receive lower priority relative to drugs used to treat HIV+ patients. Our judgments of health care justice need to be fact-sensitive. The facts now are that these targeted cancer therapies are extraordinarily expensive, both at the individual level and at the level of aggregated social costs. If the facts changed, if the costs of these drugs decreased very substantially and if the gain in life expectancy also increased dramatically, then different health care justice judgments would be warranted. In the meantime it is noteworthy that no moral argument would justify regarding cancer and its therapeutic modalities as being somehow morally special, i.e., worthy of unlimited commitments of social resources. buy Fruquintinib Instead, the question that needs to be addressed is the issue of how high a priority these targeted cancer therapies ought to have relative to all the other life-prolonging technologies available in any advanced society for addressing a broad range of life-threatening medical problems. In the US there are other problems of health care justice associated with these targeted therapies. Different health plans may cover these drugs, but they might identify them as a Tier Four drug. This will also be true for older patients in the Medicare program who must purchase a Medicare Advantage plan for prescription drug coverage. These individuals could be faced with a copay requirement of 30 for these drugs. If a drug costs 100,000 an individual would have to pay 30,000 of those costs. The practical consequence of this arrangement is that a large portion of Americans would not be able to afford these drugs. It could be argued that this is an outcome that is not especially morally objectionable. After all, many commentators have noted that these drugs are not cost-effective and yield only marginal benefits. It is not as if these drugs will cure a metastatic disease process. If wealthier individuals wish to spend their money in this way, then those choices ou.Single drug that yields only several months of gain in life expectancy [46?8]. This implies a cost-effectiveness number in many cases of several hundred thousand dollars for an extra year of life. It would not be obvious that cost-effectiveness numbers at that level represent either a wise or a just expenditure of limited societal resources. It is also justice-relevant that the AIDS drugs are very effective. They keep HIV at bay (and the patient reasonably healthy) for years and years. Targeted therapies are most often only very marginally effective; median gains in life expectancy relatively rarely get beyond one year. Still a defender of these targeted therapies might argue that from the point of view of aggregated social costs per patient, the AIDS regimen can cost 600,000 if individuals gain twenty extra years of life. In contrast, cancer patients on current single targeted agents might gain less than an extra year of life, but the social cost will be only 100,000. Then again, if we start using multiple targeted therapies in combination and in succession at a cost of 200,000 per combination per year for three years, we would have equaled the AIDS combination figure. That would suggest that these targeted therapies are much less socially productive of saved life years than current AIDS regimens. This does not yield the moral judgmentJ. Pers. Med. 2013,that funding these targeted therapies for cancer is unjust. But it does suggest that they ought (for reasons of equity and efficiency) to receive lower priority relative to drugs used to treat HIV+ patients. Our judgments of health care justice need to be fact-sensitive. The facts now are that these targeted cancer therapies are extraordinarily expensive, both at the individual level and at the level of aggregated social costs. If the facts changed, if the costs of these drugs decreased very substantially and if the gain in life expectancy also increased dramatically, then different health care justice judgments would be warranted. In the meantime it is noteworthy that no moral argument would justify regarding cancer and its therapeutic modalities as being somehow morally special, i.e., worthy of unlimited commitments of social resources. Instead, the question that needs to be addressed is the issue of how high a priority these targeted cancer therapies ought to have relative to all the other life-prolonging technologies available in any advanced society for addressing a broad range of life-threatening medical problems. In the US there are other problems of health care justice associated with these targeted therapies. Different health plans may cover these drugs, but they might identify them as a Tier Four drug. This will also be true for older patients in the Medicare program who must purchase a Medicare Advantage plan for prescription drug coverage. These individuals could be faced with a copay requirement of 30 for these drugs. If a drug costs 100,000 an individual would have to pay 30,000 of those costs. The practical consequence of this arrangement is that a large portion of Americans would not be able to afford these drugs. It could be argued that this is an outcome that is not especially morally objectionable. After all, many commentators have noted that these drugs are not cost-effective and yield only marginal benefits. It is not as if these drugs will cure a metastatic disease process. If wealthier individuals wish to spend their money in this way, then those choices ou.