I don't know the specifics of this case, but generally they fall into one of two categories. But before we go further, we need to agree to stop using emotive and factually incorrect terms like "magic bullet" treatments, which almost (but not quite) never exist.
The first type of cases like this are with drugs which are proven to be very effective.I'll take Herceptin as the example, as it was both the most high profile case, and one i know a little bit about. The problem there was that while clinical trials had proven the effectiveness of the drug, all drugs have to go through NICE to be evaluated. That process takes time, and while it is being done, PCT's can choose whether or not to use them. So there was a "postcode lottery" as such, in that some PCT's decided to give it in the meantime, and some decided to wait for NICE's decision. The one thing that didn't happen, although it was the impression given in some quarters, was that NICE somehow did an about turn to public pressure over the drug. They came to the right conclusion first time around, although there is an appeals procedure had they rejected it.
The second, and far more common scenario, is the one i believe will be the case here, and it rests on a phrase FBT used earlier, which was "prove it's effectiveness". In these cases, as in real life, things are rarely black and white. What happens with many of these drugs is that while they are hailed as a success, in reality while the patients they do help get real benefits, they are effective in only a small percentage of cases. So the real calculation is not £3000 for the drug, and not even how many lots of £3000 to get one course of treatment for one patient. It's of those courses of treatment , how many will actually prove to be clinically effective? The NHS simply can't afford to keep throwing money at drugs that in the majority of cases will have little or no clinical benefit, even for the sake of the odd one where it will have great effect.
Just a couple of other points.
Quote:
|
The cost of the medications isn't really an issue. The capacity the NHS can provide for each type of treatment is dependent on the qualified staff.
|
The cost of the medications is
precisely the issue, because the cost of them has risen exponentially in recent years. The issue of qualified staff and facilities isn't a huge one, for the simple reason that there aren't many other than minor advances being made in the area's of radiotherapy and surgery, which are the major two significant options to drugs/chemo. So while you can throw money at those to reduce waiting times (which will improve survival rates up to a certain level, and has been done to some extent) those costs are
relatively fixed.
Linear Mode
