Insurers give conflicting rulings on costly cancer drug
Saturday 14th November 2026 on 09:15 in
Switzerland
Swiss health insurers have made different decisions on whether to pay for a new pancreatic cancer drug, leaving access dependent on a patient’s insurer, SRF reported.
Inger, a 63-year-old woman from Geneva who has been fighting pancreatic cancer for two years, had hoped to receive Rasonque, also known as daraxonrasib. Her insurer rejected three applications from her doctor, the latest in September. In its most recent letter, the insurer said a therapeutic benefit could be expected but had not been sufficiently demonstrated. It also said the US manufacturer, Revolution Medicines, was unable to contribute to the treatment costs.
Inger is continuing conventional chemotherapy. “I was rarely ill and rarely went to the doctor in my life. And now, when I really need health insurance, they slam the door in my face,” she told RTS, the French-language public broadcaster.
Other insurers have reached different decisions. Concordia agreed on October 27 to cover treatment for a patient at Lausanne University Hospital for 12 months, despite putting the cost at 39,800 dollars for a monthly dose. Two days later, the hospital received a rejection from another insurer for a third patient with the same cancer, although the application cited the same medical arguments.
In that case, the insurer’s own medical reviewer accepted that the treatment’s substantial therapeutic benefit was sufficiently established. The insurer said it had been unable to agree on an appropriate price with Revolution Medicines and rejected coverage for that reason.
Rasonque is used to treat certain advanced forms of pancreatic cancer. Some oncologists have described it as a “revolution,” including for patients’ quality of life and life expectancy. The treatment costs around 40,000 Swiss francs per month in the United States. It was approved there in August 2026 but has not been approved in Switzerland, where each request for coverage must be assessed individually.
SRF did not name the insurers that refused coverage, citing concerns that patients could be identified from their records and might worry that speaking out could affect their chances of receiving treatment.