Should the NHS spend thousands of pounds on drugs that prolong cancer patients' lives but do not cure the disease or should we spend it on drugs that do cure diseases? Is it fair to think of the question as an "either/or" situation? Would you be willing to pay more into the system to cover everyone's needs?

I think that depends. You pay into the NHS Insurance scheme all your working life. maybe ,like me, you have never had to make a claim on it. That doesn't matter the premium remains the same as somebody who is makes loads of claims. So if I were to develop kidney cancer is it fair to say to me I know we've compulsorily taken all that money from you over the years and we know you've never had anything in return but sorry now that need something you can't have the treatment? Actually, I don't care that you've spent the money elsewhere on other people your contract is with me, I'm now entitled to the service.

Many years ago I sued the NHS over denial of drugs and won. While I was doing the research I was shocked just how many treatments are 'too expensive' for the NHS but are available free of charge in most other European countries who pay much lower taxes (Oh dear I spy a can of worms opening here).

Sadly the business model of the NHS is a clunky old dinosaur that needs a root a branch reform. I'm sorry but if they want to run the NHS like a business I'll treat it like one, contractual obligations included. I don't think the public cares too much whether a treatment is cost effective they want it to be clinically effective.

Save the Planet ... Burn an Accountant today!


Phew maybe I should put this in the rant thread

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!

I'll go along with the Burn an Accountant Today scenario. Most Management, not only in the NHS, is ruled by Accountants who are only interested in profits. You only have to look at the latest situation where BP, for example, make a few billions of pounds profit but complain because their profits have dropped. Accountants want to see a percentage increase in profit every year. Common sense tells us that this can only go on so long before you hit the buffers.

If drugs can be prescribed in European countries which are not available, because of cost, in the UK then something is drastically wrong. It isn't just not being cost effective in the UK it is also a Post Code lottery within the UK. Scotland prescribe some drugs which aren't available below the border. Within the UK you find some Health Authorities allowing GP's to prescribe one type of drug while in an adjacent Authority it is banned.

The NHS wants a good shake up to get rid of the "cost effective" brigade and supply the best drugs for the job country wide.

Call me pedantic, but if you've never made a claim on your NI (so assumably have never seen a doctor or NHS dentist in your adult life) why did you have to sue them over a denial of drugs?

Back to topic I appreciate that the coffers isn't a bottomless pot so there has to be some amount of cost effectiveness involved although the NHS certainly shouldn't be worried about making any kinds of profits and the government should be pushing the drugs companies to reduce the prices a great deal too. But then who would fund the research?

__________________
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them!

Join General Chat for free!

NHS Doctors no chance and Dentists nope always gone private and paid usually in Sweden. BUPA medical every year and that's it. Haven't had a day off ill in over twenty years now.

We sued the NHS because they refused to let my Father in Law's Consultant prescribe drugs privately. i.e even though we were prepared to pay for the drugs the Primary Care Trust would not fund they would not allow their consultants to prescribe them privately in case, as in the case of Aricept, it would one day be NHS approved and they would have to fund patients already receiving the drug. This well exceeds the limits of their powers and is therefore illegal.

I ended up breaking the old boy out on NHS hospital, taking him to a BUPA hospital so he could see a consultant who could prescribe the drugs then smuggling him back in because the NHS won't let private Consultants on their wards... madness

Sadly the two weeks he was off the drugs meant that he needed residential care at our expense. Yes we went to court (well they settled on the Courtroom steps rather set a precedent) and got the money back but what good was it to him two years after the event? The local hospice now has an extension in his name built with the money we won and donated.

__________________
Pone ubi sol non lucet!

Don't you have to see an NHS GP? I thought a GP still had to refer you even if you have private medical? We have BUPA too but still need to be referred. Ahh Sweden that makes more sense.

Well done you for suing and winning and mucho respostos for donating the money.

__________________
Everyone seems normal until you get to know them!

Join General Chat for free!