Interesting choice of word – “allowed”. The drugs are actually “allowed” in the UK, too. It’s just that the NHS doesn’t think that they provide an effect that is worth the money that the pharma companies are charging.
Would the Mail prefer it if the NHS threw away money on useless drugs?
I think Chris that the Mail would like the NHS to spend a little less on management consultants and administration and a little more on doctors, nurses, cancer drugs etc. Is it really asking too much of you to read the story before you comment on it?
For the record:
Drugs are evaluated by NICE which has a track record in taking too long to make the wrong decision eg on Sutent and Aricept.
This is part of a long running story about access to drugs for those suffering from rare cancers, and what many health prfessionals view as the very arbitrary basis on which NICE decisions are reached.
And pstu I’ve no idea why the colour of the woman’s hair is deemed so significant by the Mail when Original Paul has found the real importance of the story to be the size of her thighs.
@karlo If the Mail is so concerned about management and admin costs why don’t they say so, rather than run stories about how “you can’t get this drug that will save your life” etc? The impression I strongly get from the DM is they just hate everything and this just a normal Monday morning, ‘aint life shit story.
I have yet to see an article in the DM that says that has anything about admin costs within the NHS. I would really love to see that because part privatisation quite often costs far more than it saves. So please show me where they have done little more than put their faith in expensive drugs.
the DM haven’t run a story about how these or any other durgs will save your life (well not today anyway). The point about these drugs is that they will extend your life, not save it. How do you quantify the value of an extra week/ month/year and decide what is good value for money? And do you really think NICE – with it’s track record – is the best organisation to make that decision?
This story comes form the rarer cancer forum – the specialists and charities who deal with these rarer cancers. Personally I would say they were more clinically able to decide on the effectiveness of these drugs than you, me, the Daily Mail and NICE which has too many health economists and not enough clinicians on board (and of course the PCTs who still ration the drugs even if NICE approves them)
I suspect life is a bit shit if you’ve got a rare form of cancer and NICE won’t let the NHS buy the drugs which would give you a few more months. Still we’ve got to pay for the management consultants somehow.
It’s very likely the referred to drug would have saved nobody – even the mail would only claim it could extend lives.
Nice have the worst job in the world. Given a limited budget allocate the funds where they can do the most good. They can’t win, because the newspapers pick up these drugs (often prompted by press releases from the drug companies themselves) and make a story like this that – as has happened in the past – forces a change and the diversion of funds from other drugs that were more effective, but less newsworthy – costing more lives that were ’saved’ by the campaign.
The US certainly isn’t better.. they have insurance companies deciding who lives and dies, based on their ability to pay. If you’re not *extremely* well off you just won’t get treated for something like a long term cancer. Or anything long term, in fact.
I am sorry to hear of your loss, Ms Burglar. Just out of interest, how much would you be willing to pay for health insurance in America? (Assuming you could find an insurance company that didn’t exclude cover for pre-existing conditions, and you didn’t have to go with an HMO that refused to provide the really effective yet expensive treatments for you and your loved ones, that is.)
People used to travel to Mexico to get laetrile treatment for cancer, because it was supposedly an efficacious drug denied to Americans by the evil FDA. Turns out it was a crock. Just because a ‘drug’ or ‘treatment’ is available in another territory doesn’t mean it has magical healing qualities.
Besides, what could Johnny Foreigner possibly know about such matters??
Tony , your making some serious allegations. Please name the drugs in question. I assume you are not talking about the Lucentis/Avastin debate. I’d love to know which drugs you mean.
No-one is arguing that NICE have a difficult job – just that they aren’t doing it particularly well. Or as Professor John wagstaff, a leading cancer specialist, said in August 2008:
‘Thanks to NICE, doctors like myself are being forced to offer a far worse standard of care for cancer patients than the service in France, Spain and Germany – countries that spend no more on health care than we do.’ But perhaps Mailwatch contributors know better…
” if we were as advanced and as committed as America, she could have been saved”. Nice idea, but notwithstanding the much greater spend on healthcare in the USA, their life expectancy is less than the UK.
how lovely. As my comments are now all awaiting moderation I’ve no idea if any get through. Life expectancy is less than in the UK because of the significant proportion of US citizens who have no access to a reliable health sercvice.
For those who do have access to a health service -many employers provide health insurance – the treatment is every bit as good as lady burglar claims.
Thankyou for your sympathy but yes Dorren I would have made a pact with the Devil if it would have saved her life.Shall we ponder the fallacy that the NHS is “free” ? Everyone with an income pays a minimum of 12.8% of their wages(rising by +2.5% in 2011)alsao the employer pays on a like for like basis. Then there is a prescription charge on evry item prescribed. Dentistry is no longer frre for most. and woebetide anyone should live to the age where care is needed.Those that have worked all their lives to better themselves have it taken away(unless one lives in Scotland but that is another argument) As for NICE they are paid handsomely for sitting as judge and jury and sometimes God over the lives of us lesser mortals. I would suggest that most of them have private insurance.As for America it would be interesting to way up the cost of their scheme as against ours, and let me at the same time point out , that according to relatives in America that no noe should be in a position not to be able to access healthcare as charities step in to provide .So without going into hte finer points of costing the NHS doesn’t seem quite so free
The NHS is free at the point of delivery. Of course we pay for it in taxes, as we do for every public service – or do you want charities to provide education, mend our roads and police our cities as well?
And do you really think public healthcare provision by charities is acceptable in a modern state? In the US if you lose your job through no fault of your own you lose your insurance so you go from a reasonable level of treatment to the very bottom line overnight. That strike you as fair? And that’s assuming that even when you have insurance the insurers will be happy carry on paying out whenever you claim. If you have such a kind view of insurance companies I don’t know what planet you’ve spent your life on.
Davo,
do you really think it is acceptable to have a public healthcare system so inept that a 22 year old dies of dehydration three days after going into hospital for a hip replacement.
Or a system where up to 70 deaths at Basildon University Hospital are attributed to lack of hygene and basic nursing care.
Bbefore we get all superior about the third world US healthcase system maybe we ought to sort out our own
errr, seeing as the comments here about the US healthcare system where made in responce to claims that it was supirior to the UK healthcare system, it doesn’t really make any sense to criticise the people who said as much, on the basis that its better than the US but stil flawed.
no one said it was brilliant, just that the US model is worse, rather than better, which was the claim originally made.
The last major international study showed that five year cancer survival rates were significantly higher in the US than in the UK. Patients in the US have access to new drugs and technology far faster than we have in the UK.
How does that make our system better than the US?
We have a much fairer system but if someone you love is sick: do you want fairness or the best medical treatment money can buy.
maybe the 10 drugs in the mail’s story really are worth it, i dont know, but i find it impossible to trust the mail on these matters now because it just goes for the sensationalist angle like any other tabloid – if a drug isnt approved, theyre outraged, and if it is, they’ll find some other reason to be outraged about it. for example it campaigned for herceptin for ages and said it was safe, then the moment it was approved it ran a story with the headline “so just how safe IS herceptin?”
then when the HPV vaccine came out, it ran a lot of articles that were against it. meanwhile the irish government was thinking of withdrawing the vaccine and the irish edition of the mail campaigned in favour of the vaccine! to me it just seems that the mail rails against the status quo, whatever that may be, because “outrage, fury and anger over such-and-such” is more of an attention-grabbing story than “not much fuss over such-and-such.”
So, let me get this straight, Europe, is better!
I bet her cheeks are huge looking at those legs!
Does this mean the drug isn’t allowed in the USA, because obviously America trumps Europe any day of the week.
Interesting choice of word – “allowed”. The drugs are actually “allowed” in the UK, too. It’s just that the NHS doesn’t think that they provide an effect that is worth the money that the pharma companies are charging.
Would the Mail prefer it if the NHS threw away money on useless drugs?
Why is that woman’s hair colour significant? If it was a man would they consider his hair colour more important than any other fact?
The kindest explanation is that the Mail knows nothing else about her other than her hair colour; certainly the article provides no more facts.
Another classic Mail Paradox…………
The NHS is “bloated” because of the vast amounts of hard working tax payers money that we waste on it.
And yet they want drugs (available for free) that costs huge amounts of money to provide.
Errr, sorry Mail, start paying higher taxes if you want the equivilant of private medical care for free.
For the record:
Drugs like this are evaluated on:
1: Their effectiveness
2: Value for money to the tax payer
It won’t be available, as it probably costs far too much money, for the fact that it probably doesn’t work very well.
Again. I’m assuming that access to these miracle, expensive drugs will be to cut NHS funding by 20%!?
Contrast the reaction when a new drug is introduced: MMR, HPV etc.
“Evil Big Pharma is Damaging our Children”
And what’s that with the “Could Have” extended lives.
Surely the Mail is the world’s leading authority on things that cure and cause cancer. We want our high moral tome delivered with words of authority.
I think Chris that the Mail would like the NHS to spend a little less on management consultants and administration and a little more on doctors, nurses, cancer drugs etc. Is it really asking too much of you to read the story before you comment on it?
For the record:
Drugs are evaluated by NICE which has a track record in taking too long to make the wrong decision eg on Sutent and Aricept.
This is part of a long running story about access to drugs for those suffering from rare cancers, and what many health prfessionals view as the very arbitrary basis on which NICE decisions are reached.
And pstu I’ve no idea why the colour of the woman’s hair is deemed so significant by the Mail when Original Paul has found the real importance of the story to be the size of her thighs.
Free shit, blonde, cancer.
The Holy Grail, together at last! If only the drugs were banned by the BBC and had affected house prices…
(P.S. Any news on when the forum will be back up?)
@karlo If the Mail is so concerned about management and admin costs why don’t they say so, rather than run stories about how “you can’t get this drug that will save your life” etc? The impression I strongly get from the DM is they just hate everything and this just a normal Monday morning, ‘aint life shit story.
I have yet to see an article in the DM that says that has anything about admin costs within the NHS. I would really love to see that because part privatisation quite often costs far more than it saves. So please show me where they have done little more than put their faith in expensive drugs.
George
the DM haven’t run a story about how these or any other durgs will save your life (well not today anyway). The point about these drugs is that they will extend your life, not save it. How do you quantify the value of an extra week/ month/year and decide what is good value for money? And do you really think NICE – with it’s track record – is the best organisation to make that decision?
This story comes form the rarer cancer forum – the specialists and charities who deal with these rarer cancers. Personally I would say they were more clinically able to decide on the effectiveness of these drugs than you, me, the Daily Mail and NICE which has too many health economists and not enough clinicians on board (and of course the PCTs who still ration the drugs even if NICE approves them)
I suspect life is a bit shit if you’ve got a rare form of cancer and NICE won’t let the NHS buy the drugs which would give you a few more months. Still we’ve got to pay for the management consultants somehow.
-
well said Karlo. I have lost a beloved daughter to cancer and perhaps, if we were as advanced and as committed as America, she could have been saved
It’s very likely the referred to drug would have saved nobody – even the mail would only claim it could extend lives.
Nice have the worst job in the world. Given a limited budget allocate the funds where they can do the most good. They can’t win, because the newspapers pick up these drugs (often prompted by press releases from the drug companies themselves) and make a story like this that – as has happened in the past – forces a change and the diversion of funds from other drugs that were more effective, but less newsworthy – costing more lives that were ’saved’ by the campaign.
The US certainly isn’t better.. they have insurance companies deciding who lives and dies, based on their ability to pay. If you’re not *extremely* well off you just won’t get treated for something like a long term cancer. Or anything long term, in fact.
I am sorry to hear of your loss, Ms Burglar. Just out of interest, how much would you be willing to pay for health insurance in America? (Assuming you could find an insurance company that didn’t exclude cover for pre-existing conditions, and you didn’t have to go with an HMO that refused to provide the really effective yet expensive treatments for you and your loved ones, that is.)
People used to travel to Mexico to get laetrile treatment for cancer, because it was supposedly an efficacious drug denied to Americans by the evil FDA. Turns out it was a crock. Just because a ‘drug’ or ‘treatment’ is available in another territory doesn’t mean it has magical healing qualities.
Besides, what could Johnny Foreigner possibly know about such matters??
there is a fantastic write up on this perticular story over at angry mob:
http://www.angrymob.uponnothing.co.uk/home/70-newspaper-lies/992-sick-and-wrong
as per for this kind of story, for every shrieking headline, there is a proper nuanced debate that is being drowned out.
Tony , your making some serious allegations. Please name the drugs in question. I assume you are not talking about the Lucentis/Avastin debate. I’d love to know which drugs you mean.
No-one is arguing that NICE have a difficult job – just that they aren’t doing it particularly well. Or as Professor John wagstaff, a leading cancer specialist, said in August 2008:
‘Thanks to NICE, doctors like myself are being forced to offer a far worse standard of care for cancer patients than the service in France, Spain and Germany – countries that spend no more on health care than we do.’ But perhaps Mailwatch contributors know better…
” if we were as advanced and as committed as America, she could have been saved”. Nice idea, but notwithstanding the much greater spend on healthcare in the USA, their life expectancy is less than the UK.
how lovely. As my comments are now all awaiting moderation I’ve no idea if any get through. Life expectancy is less than in the UK because of the significant proportion of US citizens who have no access to a reliable health sercvice.
For those who do have access to a health service -many employers provide health insurance – the treatment is every bit as good as lady burglar claims.
“Life expectancy is less than in the UK because of the significant proportion of US citizens who have no access to a reliable health sercvice.”
So would you and lady burglar say that a system that allows people to die early because they do not have insurance is
‘advanced’ and ‘committed’?
Thankyou for your sympathy but yes Dorren I would have made a pact with the Devil if it would have saved her life.Shall we ponder the fallacy that the NHS is “free” ? Everyone with an income pays a minimum of 12.8% of their wages(rising by +2.5% in 2011)alsao the employer pays on a like for like basis. Then there is a prescription charge on evry item prescribed. Dentistry is no longer frre for most. and woebetide anyone should live to the age where care is needed.Those that have worked all their lives to better themselves have it taken away(unless one lives in Scotland but that is another argument) As for NICE they are paid handsomely for sitting as judge and jury and sometimes God over the lives of us lesser mortals. I would suggest that most of them have private insurance.As for America it would be interesting to way up the cost of their scheme as against ours, and let me at the same time point out , that according to relatives in America that no noe should be in a position not to be able to access healthcare as charities step in to provide .So without going into hte finer points of costing the NHS doesn’t seem quite so free
The NHS is free at the point of delivery. Of course we pay for it in taxes, as we do for every public service – or do you want charities to provide education, mend our roads and police our cities as well?
And do you really think public healthcare provision by charities is acceptable in a modern state? In the US if you lose your job through no fault of your own you lose your insurance so you go from a reasonable level of treatment to the very bottom line overnight. That strike you as fair? And that’s assuming that even when you have insurance the insurers will be happy carry on paying out whenever you claim. If you have such a kind view of insurance companies I don’t know what planet you’ve spent your life on.
Davo,
do you really think it is acceptable to have a public healthcare system so inept that a 22 year old dies of dehydration three days after going into hospital for a hip replacement.
Or a system where up to 70 deaths at Basildon University Hospital are attributed to lack of hygene and basic nursing care.
Bbefore we get all superior about the third world US healthcase system maybe we ought to sort out our own
errr, seeing as the comments here about the US healthcare system where made in responce to claims that it was supirior to the UK healthcare system, it doesn’t really make any sense to criticise the people who said as much, on the basis that its better than the US but stil flawed.
no one said it was brilliant, just that the US model is worse, rather than better, which was the claim originally made.
The last major international study showed that five year cancer survival rates were significantly higher in the US than in the UK. Patients in the US have access to new drugs and technology far faster than we have in the UK.
How does that make our system better than the US?
We have a much fairer system but if someone you love is sick: do you want fairness or the best medical treatment money can buy.
well, if you on the wrong side of US system you get knob all, so, fairness.
maybe the 10 drugs in the mail’s story really are worth it, i dont know, but i find it impossible to trust the mail on these matters now because it just goes for the sensationalist angle like any other tabloid – if a drug isnt approved, theyre outraged, and if it is, they’ll find some other reason to be outraged about it. for example it campaigned for herceptin for ages and said it was safe, then the moment it was approved it ran a story with the headline “so just how safe IS herceptin?”
then when the HPV vaccine came out, it ran a lot of articles that were against it. meanwhile the irish government was thinking of withdrawing the vaccine and the irish edition of the mail campaigned in favour of the vaccine! to me it just seems that the mail rails against the status quo, whatever that may be, because “outrage, fury and anger over such-and-such” is more of an attention-grabbing story than “not much fuss over such-and-such.”
well, at least there is an HPV Vaccine these days that can prevent HPV infection,:~