More Drugs being denied re cost

[Donald]

http://mailer.telegraph.co.uk/?drOr...are-denied-high-cost-drugs-by-NHS-trusts.html

 

[Caroline]

It wont be long before it costs too much to be ill.

 

[Donald]

It wont be long before it costs too much to be ill.

I think it is about three quarters there already with the amount of drugs that are available but denied due to cost.

 

[AlisonM]

Och, just bury me now and be done with it!

 

[Donald]

Och, just bury me now and be done with it!

I feel the same way sometimes but it cost two to three thousand to bury someone nowadays once every thing has been factored in.

 

[caffeine_demon]

Och, just bury me now and be done with it!

on the NHS?? you gotta be kiddin!!

 

[Klocky]

Och, just bury me now and be done with it!

I'll get me spade

 

[RachelT]

A bit of an explaination (which you'll probably hate, sorry...). GPs and the NHS in general only has so much money to spend on drugs. Drugs cost a lot of money, especially newer drugs, which the examples mentioned in the artical are. These drugs are under a sort of patent that means that only the drug company that developed them can make and sell them, which means they can charge what they like. It has to work like this because it's very expensive to develop drugs and if you had an instant competition with the "generic " makers then nobody would bother to develop new drugs at all.
What happens is that formulary committees write up a list of the drugs that they feel are the best value for money, ie most likely to make the patient get better for the least ammount of money. It's a complicated balance between cost and benefit.
For example, Atorvastatin is still under patent from Pfizer, so you can only get Pfizer brand drugs, (Lipator), which cost a lot more than generic brand Simvastatin. But the drug tends to have less side effects than Simvastatin and so it can be given to patients who can't tollerate simvastatin. Ideally we'd give everybody the drugs with the least side effects possible, (and all type 2s glucose test strips if they wanted them...), but the Government would have to give the NHS a lot more money, and that is sooooooooo not going to happen.
Doctors can prescribe what they like, but have to stick to a budget, that's the problem.

Darned economics

 

[Donald]

A bit of an explaination (which you'll probably hate, sorry...). GPs and the NHS in general only has so much money to spend on drugs. Drugs cost a lot of money, especially newer drugs, which the examples mentioned in the artical are. These drugs are under a sort of patent that means that only the drug company that developed them can make and sell them, which means they can charge what they like. It has to work like this because it's very expensive to develop drugs and if you had an instant competition with the "generic " makers then nobody would bother to develop new drugs at all.
What happens is that formulary committees write up a list of the drugs that they feel are the best value for money, ie most likely to make the patient get better for the least ammount of money. It's a complicated balance between cost and benefit.
For example, Atorvastatin is still under patent from Pfizer, so you can only get Pfizer brand drugs, (Lipator), which cost a lot more than generic brand Simvastatin. But the drug tends to have less side effects than Simvastatin and so it can be given to patients who can't tollerate simvastatin. Ideally we'd give everybody the drugs with the least side effects possible, (and all type 2s glucose test strips if they wanted them...), but the Government would have to give the NHS a lot more money, and that is sooooooooo not going to happen.
Doctors can prescribe what they like, but have to stick to a budget, that's the problem.

Darned economics

Darned economics indeed as you said a drug company's R & D division must go thru a shed load cash to develop a a drug I wander how many that go for testing do get approved and how many fail to get approval

 

[Mark T]

Darned economics indeed as you said a drug company's R & D division must go thru a shed load cash to develop a a drug I wander how many that go for testing do get approved and how many fail to get approval

From what I understand, one of the complications is that you can't just do one global set of approvals. It has to be approved in each country that it is being sold in. This drives the R&D cost up even higher.

 

[Robster65]

Just to resurrect this thread, this article on diabetes.co.uk, which may or may not be alarmist (only time will tell).

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2011...g-banned-from-nhs-prescriptions-98154831.html

[opinion]
It's the lack of consitency between PCTs that needs to be addressed, rather than the actions. A hundred directors with a hundred different ideas of how to run a PCT and none of them seem to have any common aims. By all means, prioritise on certain local areas of need eg. drug rehab, obesity, etc but for the basics, it should be decided at a higher, national level.
[/opinion]

Rob

 

[RachelT]

My friend was saying much the same the other day. She said that we aught to get a national formulary. Not just a book about it . The MHRA regulate what drugs are allowed, full stop, but it's a long long list of drugs. You can (or at least doctors can) prescribe off licence, which is legal and in some cases essential, especially when working witness kids. It's a nightmare, and really, your right there's no excuse of a postcode lottery. And the devolution of the NHS isn't,t going to help at all.

 

[Robster65]

I do have some faith in the GPs and the future system in that the vast majority will have the patients' inerests at heart, but where this conflicts with their budget constraints and/or pressure from pharma salesmen, there will be some who compromise patient health.

There must be temptation for them to replace MDI or pumping with a cheaper, but still workable alternative that takes away quality of life. I know there will be safeguards but it is a worry until we know for sure.

Rob