How much money to save a life

[Frustratedandunsure]

So I was reading this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v6g9q6rjqo BBC article about a life saving drug being denied on the NHS due to price negotiations with the manufacturer.

Interesting that this drug is available in other countries like Canada who also have a nationalised health approach, so it looks like we are arguing over what a life is worth. Personally I would not mind paying higher taxes to ensure all drugs are available for everyone as I would like the assurance it was there if I ever needed it. Having to be told a drug is available but you don’t qualify or we won’t pay when you are facing end of life decisions is beyond heartbreaking.

but I would be interested in others view ? Can we not save everyone and should we prioritise our NHS budget on treatment that has a better business case ?

Lucky it’s out there.
There are no real game changer drugs for nuero stuff, ms, Parkinson’s, dementia and motor neuron disease, Rob Burrows dies of motor neuron, the royals cancer, if it was flipped around?
I have Parkinson’s 7 yrs in, slowly disabling me at 62.
Should be national shame that almost zero publicity and funding happens.
cancer gets so much attention and funding, can have remission tho, none for me, and some preventable

It doesn't save a life though ...

I'm on a fairly expensive drug - £512 for 2 injections which I do at the same time
The consultant is happy as I've managed to stretch it from every 3 weeks to every 5 without any issues and he says I'm saving money!

It's life changing for me, if I wasn't able to have it I don't know what I would do. The NHS can see the benefit though as without it I can't exercise, walk, have a hot bath/shower, wear a coat, run for a bus, clean... anything that involves moving basically or I am head to toe in hives

saving a life is somewhat different to extending it for six months.

It’s pretty credible…

And is totally a valid decision point that the patient should be aware of. For some it may be worth it to go through treatment to save a body part… for others they may be fine with the option of drastic ’cut it off’ treatment. All should be on the table. Exchange testical for breast and the realities hit home.

That is one thing that I think is good about the US system… it’s not hard or expensive to get a second opinion. and for really big medical issues it’s pretty standard.

We are all going to die. Many people have trouble accepting this, but it's still a fact.

NHS has to make hard decisions all the time.

Medicine is really expensive. A basic liquid antibiotic for say a young child with an infection for a week is just over £100.

So expensive. Let alone these new drugs.

Would I want to waste the NHS's money to keep me alive for three extra months that could have been used to provide antibiotics to three hundred kids or whatever...I'm not sure.

I'd like to think I'd put the kids first. That would be the sensible thing. My life for theirs. Would I have the guts to say that in the situation. Don't know. Glad the nhs decides for me. I'd hope they'd save the kids.

Stop NHS viagra for men’s SO important shag drive. There may be money to help actually ill people. Not women I would guess though.

Does it?

Amoxicillin is £3

https://bnfc.nice.org.uk/drugs/amoxicillin/medicinal-forms/

So £100 for a standard antibiotic (,rather than a new one that's still in patent) sounds a lot to me.

This is terrible and so sad.

This kind of thing is an argument for people who can afford it to pay something into the health system.

Because the uk isn’t the only country in the world maybe . . .

This isn’t a new thing, I remember learning about QALYs ( Quality Adjusted Life Years) over thirty years ago. It was basically a calculation including age and type of illness that assessed whether treatments were worth paying for or not on the NHS.

Of course it's lovely and #kind to think that all drugs and treatments should be funded by the NHS. Unfortunately though, the appetite for the increased taxation is very low unless people assume that someone else is being taxed and not them. This has always been the issue.

The link between money and life expectancy may be more obvious with stories like this, but the reality is that most of us will have sub optimal life spans as a result of money. We can't all afford the best food and best medical care. We are often exposed to stress and other damaging elements as a result of living a modern life and need to work to earn money. We are all short of time because of this too which means it's harder to exercise optimally or cook everything from scratch. All of these things are likely impacting our health and contributing to our early deaths. I'm not sure this is intrinsically bad though because if you think back across all human history (and even before then), all species are constrained by resource in some way. It seems it is largely a function of being alive and it is unrealistic to expect everyone to live as long as possible

I think if that’s ultimately your point here, you need to open your eyes. Of course access to drugs is dependent on what country you’re in. For the most part, we’re all incredibly lucky to have access to the NHS; there are entire continents where people can die if they don’t have private funds to pay for care.

Um… they do - the UK has one of the highest taxation rates in the world. In Scotland there is currently a marginal tax rate of 67.5% for earnings between 100-125k.

This has always been the way unfortunately

If you think this is disgusting and lives are limitlessly valuable you should agree that the £100K should be used to actually save the lives of several people in countries where there is zero public healthcare.

Clearly, taxes aren't enough to run the NHS. It's in a mess and has been for a long time. Australia and Canada pay nominal amounts on a sliding scale based on earnings, but their taxes fund much of it. It's a public/private mix, which seems to work well. Many, many people could afford to pay at least something for their care, and it would help a lot.

It is, tho as I’ve said it lots with cancer often get some treatments, the nuero mob, and others get zero drugs of any real meaning.
I get dopamine replacement for Parkinson’s, and paying for nuero physio, no life changing drugs, ok.
Deep brain stimulation for a few…
Lots get dementia with almost zero help too

Lazy comparison. Viagra costs the NHS less than 20 pence a tablet. I don’t think there is a feminist angle to this story, unless you think NICE secretly put a factor in their formulae to undervalue the quality of women’s lives.

I think most people don't understand a lot about population-level healthcare-spend decision-making...

The numbers of people and episodes of care involved are colossal

The cost of healthcare at a population level is almost unimaginable... our general 'free at the point of use' ethos in the U.K. hugely insulates us from understanding the real cost. You think vets are expensive? Now think about that for all human healthcare

As PP have said, we're all going to die. Cancer and other diseases are shit. We have to get our heads around this too... and understand for someone who is alive but experiencing poor quality of life, their healthcare costs in addition to the drug, are massive

I think at a population level we should prioritise treating people and then having healthy, active lives until the age when they would likely have raised their own children to adulthood... anything after that is a bonus

Maybe I read too much Hobbes and Bentham as an undergrad but basically human life is short and fragile, and internal and external factors impacting on human life can be absolutely brutal.

We have to enjoy, cherish and preserve the life we have (the public health message basically) and be thankful that we have the multi billion pound healthcare system that we do.

Not for the want of trying. There is huge money and effort poured into dementia research. It’s just the drugs aren’t that good unfortunately

Interesting take - so instead of raising additional funds from people equally based on earnings, you’d penalise specifically those who are unlucky enough to require a lot of health treatment and ask them to pay towards it?

There's a book by Lionel Shriver, So much for that, in which the wife is dying and the husband uses all their life savings on her treatment, a million dollars, in the last appointment with her doctors he asks how long the million dollars has added to her life expectancy and it's quite a short amount of time. I can't remember how long, but say three months. As pp have said there's a balance issue between cost and extension of life. however again as pp have said that's a heartbreaking dilemma and I would want those drugs and if my kids were sick I would want them to have access. I'm glad someone else makes these decisions and not me.