After being turned down twice for the Axumin scan after BCR for pre-authorization at the peer-to-peer review level with my MO and the head of the OHSU Knight Prostate Cancer Center my docs and I are fuming! I have called other prostate cancer oncology groups who have had the same experience. My insurance company is Providence Health Plans.
They said they flat out won't cover it, even though it's FDA approved specifically for this condition. They won't even cover PET scans at all for prostate cancer. They consider it an inappropriate diagnostic tool. This is approved by the FDA, NCCN Guidelines for PET scan for suspected BCR and others.
This is true of other insurance companies as well and will continue to be more common as new diagnostics and treatment modalities are approved.
I have come to believe that patients need a non-profit advocacy group with the ability to take legal action against the insurance companies, if needed. Is there such a group? Patients with many conditions fall in these gaps without recourse.
Pitchforks and torches time!
It's the Golden Rule. "He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules!" If the patent holders of the Axumin Scan want their scan used more widely they will have to lower the price to compete with the scans insurance companies are willing to pay for...
Perhaps you are right in the sense that a decision to offer or withhold treatment should not be made based on cost. This is especially true when the insurance company is willing to to pay nothing for a treatment that is widely accepted and necessary. I am willing to pay my share of the $8,500 it costs but they won't even pay the PET scan portion. The F18 tracer is $4,000 of that amount. When I think of what new drugs that come to market cost, this amount does not seem to me to be out of line. In fact, it seems a bargain by comparison, especially given the price breaks we all know that insurance companies get that we don't.
The most basic problem with our "health care system" is that it allows large national and multinational companies to set prices (drug and diagnostics companies) and to weigh the value of a patient's treatment against the profitability of providing it (insurance companies). After everyone gets "their cut" only the wealthy and perhaps those on medicare can pay for these new treatments (per your statement above). It is an inherently disfunctional system.... if we (all Americans) truly are to receive health care based on need and not greed.