• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

More things I don't understand

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    More things I don't understand

    And seek wisdom from aTW on.

    We frequently see news about hugely expensive drugs the NHS won't pay for and can't see the logic behind these costs.

    If the prices are so high that almost nobody can buy the drug, then what was the point of the drug company making it? If the anticipated market was those with some rare disorder such that the manufacturing price would inevitably be so high that almost nobody could afford it, what was the point of them researching it and trialling it in the first place?
    Last edited by xoggoth; 2 November 2008, 11:48.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

    #2
    Same ethos the weapons companies use.

    Wouldn't suprise me if there's quite a lot of familiar names on the boards of both types of companies, starting with ex-MPs.
    Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
    Feist - I Feel It All
    Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
      If the prices are so high that almost nobody can buy the drug, then what was the point of the drug company making it?
      I think you will find that many countries buy those drugs just fine - including those in Europe, it is only the "free" NHS in the UK that refuses to buy essential drugs that can prolong lifes of their clients.

      I think if the moment NHS refuses to supply existing drug on the grounds of costs, then NHS is in material contract breach with the person in question. On that case NHS should be liable to pay all taxes that person paid plus damages, this should be given as a lump sum.

      So if they refuse to buy drugs to prolong someone life for 6-12 months as "cost-inefficient" thing, then at least that person will have their money back and then some on top and live decently for the rest of his/her life. Or just use the money for private treatment elsewhere.

      NHS in my view is a big con in this country, the only thing bigger is pensions (unless you are MP or seniour civil servant).

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
        And seek wisdom from aTW on.
        Teachers pet - he answers your questions but not mine.
        How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

        Follow me on Twitter - LinkedIn Profile - The HAB blog - New Blog: Mad Cameron
        Xeno points: +5 - Asperger rating: 36 - Paranoid Schizophrenic rating: 44%

        "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office" - Aesop

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by HairyArsedBloke View Post
          Teachers pet - he answers your questions but not mine.
          WHS

          Comment


            #6
            Hey! I agree with aTW, cheers, most excellently anarchist reply.
            bloggoth

            If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
            John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

            Comment


              #7
              Drug companies put the costs down to not only the high manufacturing costs, but add on the years of research it takes to produce, test and market these drugs. In counties like the USA those who can afford it purchase these drugs, in fact the USA spends more per head on prescription drugs then anywhere else, despite the average persons life expectancy being lower then ours. If you can afford it, you can have it!

              The NHS state they can not afford some of the high cost drugs for conditions such as cancer, and some of the new drugs following a kidney transplant can be up to 35k per person per year. How many of us could afford that sort of money?

              I personally think that allowing people to top up their NHS treatment from their own funds will not help, there are people out there who simply could not afford it so why should they suffer?

              I personally think the drug companies should be challenged into the high cost they charge, perhaps if more money was put in by the government into research and development, the cost of these drugs would be reduced making them more affordable. However this money would have to come from somewhere.

              Doesn’t answer the initial question but this is something that does make my blood boil?

              Just be grateful you do not live in a 3rd world country where you could not afford an aspirin let alone an antibiotic!
              Just call me Matron - Too many handbags

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by zara_backdog View Post
                let alone an antibiotic!
                Antibiotics are probably more effective in Africa then here now!

                Comment


                  #9
                  I hope I can clarify some questions, since I work for the NHS, sit opposite the Chief Pharmacist for the area, and need to obtain medicine for my MS.

                  1. The Pharmaceuticals are wholly to blame, becuase they effectively hold the NHS to ransom with the cost of their medicines.

                  The Pharma's will argue that they spend hundreds of millions on a new drug, which they need to make back to at least break even.

                  Then they need to make profit for the shareholders, above and beyond breaking even, so this hikes the price up even more.

                  Hence, the 4 drugs which are available for MS sufferers each cost the NHS approximately 10-15K per year, per patient.

                  2. There is another drug, currently in the British National Formulary (basically, that means it's legal for use, and has been around for years, and can be prescribed by any doctor.

                  However, its use for MS, whilst having a lot of evidence from the USA and around the world, as being helpful, has not been given the go ahead for MS sufferers in the UK.

                  This means, that to get it, you have to get the doctor to write an prescription Off-Label.

                  Off-label means you are being given a drug, which is already fully approved by the BNF for clinical use, however it is being given to treat an illness which it would not normally be used for.

                  Now, I had to go private and get this drug, which costs me about £30 a month.

                  I spoke to the Chief Pharmacist and said "if this drug is in the BNF, and therefore approved, why can't I get it off-label on the NHS. Instead of me, as a patient costing you 10-15K a year on the current medicines, I only need to cost you £360 a year."

                  The answer is damning of the Pharmas.

                  "Because it's not in the Pharma's interest to make the tablet size to supply the NHS a drug which will only earn them £360 a year, when they can make £10-15K per patient instead".

                  That's it in a nutshell folks.

                  It comes down to money. (what a surprise eh ?)

                  I did mention to the Chief Pharmacist that perhaps the NHS should run their own Pharma, so they could develop drugs and provide them without shareholder's interests conflicting in the cost and supply chain.

                  However, that would take billions to set up, and essentially, they'd have to start from scratch, since existing drugs are patented. The time, research and cost would be prohibitive.

                  So essentially, we're all at the mercy of the Pharma's, because the buck really does stop with them.

                  To blame the NHS and NICE is easy, until you realise the sheer power the Pharma's exert on both organisations.

                  The Pharma's are quite relieved that the public and media seem to direct their anger at the NHS and NICE, without understanding who the real bogeymen are.

                  I'm not saying the NHS and NICE are whiter than white, but even the most altruistic and well-meaning decisions get scuppered when they may threaten the Pharma's business model.
                  Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

                  C.S. Lewis

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Board Game Geek View Post
                    1. The Pharmaceuticals are wholly to blame, becuase they effectively hold the NHS to ransom with the cost of their medicines.
                    Why medicines available in Europe, USA or even Scotland are not available on NHS in England, is the price for these drugs different from that charged in Europe? If Germany or France can afford to buy these drugs for their citizens, so should UK.

                    The question of pharma profits is another issue, NHS just seems to reject drugs that are being used elsewhere in Europe and it is not right.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X