Why can't we get the new medicine in Denmark?

How is it that you can get medicine in our neighboring countries that we cannot get in Denmark? Oncologist Niels Fristrup and conservative health spokesperson Per Larsen both want Denmark to become a leader in health, but they disagree on how.

Today, new, effective medicine is not necessarily good news. At least not for Danish patients.

This is because many new medicines are rejected by the Medicines Council, which considers them to be too expensive in relation to the effect. And when the government presented the health package in the spring, no funds were allocated for new medical treatments. That is why the Breast Cancer Association has launched a campaign #Givostid, which focuses on the fact that there are new medicines that can prolong life, but this just doesn't always apply in Denmark.

It should be easier

Niels Fristrup, who is a specialist at Aarhus University Hospital, has no doubt that it should be easier and faster to get new medicine:

"There are new and effective treatments which can improve the patient's prognosis and which are EMA approved, but which are not given in Denmark. The treatments are safe, they are effective and they are better than the existing ones. EMA has already made that assessment. But the countries in Europe handle the information that comes from the EMA differently. In Denmark, the Medical Council must assess the relationship between price and effect before they can recommend a new drug. The long waiting time while this takes place is very frustrating for both doctor and patient. Therefore, the assessment must be faster and more flexible. Why are we in Denmark so significantly different from our neighboring countries," asks Niels Fristrup.

Per Larsen, conservative health rapporteur, believes that as a prosperous country we must have one of the best health systems in the world. But we cannot simply recommend a new drug because the EMA has approved it, he explains:

"When a new drug comes out, we can't just take the EMA's review for good products. All European countries agree and assess it in relation to the treatments they already have. It can be different from country to country, which treatment is offered and against which the new preparation must be measured. This means that in some countries there may be a greater benefit from a new drug than in other countries, because what they are comparing on the basis of is worse than in e.g. Denmark," says Per Larsen and points out that it is fundamentally about economics.

Denmark lags behind

Niels Fristrup believes, on the other hand, that we risk disconnecting Denmark from the improvements that are taking place.

"Partly due to delays in the Medical Council's approval work, and partly if the Medical Council rejects treatments that are offered in the countries we compare ourselves to, we risk offering a treatment that is below the standard in the countries we compare ourselves to," he says.

"I hope and believe that we can afford to provide the new and effective treatments. It is now sometimes the case that if you get access to a new and effective medicine, you can get rid of the secondary consequences of the disease running rampant, and thus improve your quality of life," he says, pointing out that you must also take into account the

derived positive effects by using new treatments such as fewer admissions, fewer follow-up treatments, increased work supply - because you can get back to work," he explains, reminding us that medicines can have side effects, and the connection between side effects and effect must be meaningful.

Is it worth the price?

Per Larsen emphasizes that he can easily understand that women affected by breast cancer are in a terrible situation and that they will do everything to preserve life a little longer.

"You might try a preparation first, which then doesn't work, then you try another and perhaps a third product. It is also not the case that you simply give carte blanche to all treatments in other countries, not even in e.g. Norway. It is important to remember that it is about terminally ill people getting a few extra months for a lot of money. It can cost up to DKK 900,000 for a woman to have her life extended by 3 months. So is it worth it? It is the balance that is the difficult question," he says and adds that he is pleased that the Medical Council has approved Enhertu for use in Denmark after a long time, because it can prolong the lives of terminally ill patients.

"But if you decide to use all these preparations, it will completely drain the healthcare system. So we have to have a sharp balance and I am comfortable with the prioritization that exists. But I think we should have more funds for medicine," emphasizes.

Niels Fristrup, on the other hand, believes that we lack a debate in Denmark about which health system we want.

"It is a discussion that the cities have a right to," he says.