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 ?

I haven’t assumed this at all.

There is definitely a price to save a life. It's not just with NICE and medical treatments. Currently there is a value per fatality (VPF) for roads of approx £2m and for rail and air transport of approx £6m. So a road scheme such as a reconfigured junction expected to save 10 lives will be approved at a cost of up to £20m.

If we proportionally increased taxes then I’d be happy to pay my share.

We need to remember the NHS has a finite amount if money and sadly they need to weigh up whether it's affordable

I was on injections that boat the nhs over £1000 per fortnight. My condition isn't life threatening but my quality of life was poor - luckily it was available on the mhs

This. What would be the point of extending life for 6 months or whatever if it just means someone will be ill for 6 months longer before dying anyway

Because places like USA will pay for them

And even people needing certain drugs understand that there is a price people, including themselves, are willing to pay, or not. This drug is available in the UK if people are willing/able to pay for it. If I could have an extra six months of good life but I had to sell my house and make my children homeless to do so, I wouldn't do it, the price is too high.
I've said upthread that I really think we need to reevaluate our 'care' of the extremely elderly towards the end of there lives. We spend a fortune extended terrible quality of life for as long as possible. It's just plain cruel.

I think this is a false equivalents.

Other countries' health services have much better access to many expensive treatments. Ireland and Canada, for example.

Anyway, I think the posters on this thread suffering cancer should go over to the inheritance tax threads and shame the greedy fuckers wanting hundreds of thousands of pounds free money without paying a single penny in tax.

By how much? 10% more tax? 20? 50?

Because for every breast cancer drug there's another 'wonder drug' for another condition......

You have no idea there isn't some cross over between the two groups

Oh I have no doubt at all that plenty of people would argue that they shouldn't have to pay a penny in tax on a massive great free windfall, but at the same time the working taxpayer should spread their money more thinly to fund expensive medical treatment they can access for free.

Rather than thinking about raising taxes to pay , we should also be thinking about how the whole pharmaceutical industry works and how to keep drug costs down
So
We should have a lot of uk based manufacturing
And a lot of government funded research so that we get more pricing control
And that might also encourage research to fix problems rather than than medicate for life to maximise profit

I've said upthread that I really think we need to reevaluate our 'care' of the extremely elderly towards the end of there lives. We spend a fortune extended terrible quality of life for as long as possible. It's just plain cruel

This one often comes up, and FWIW I agree completely, @Kendodd
It's always seemed to me that keeping folk alive in discomfort purely because loved ones can't bear to say goodbye helps nobody, and especially not the person near their end, for whom a dignified death may well be kinder

Of course it's a sad fact that not everyone gets that dignified death, but substituting a pitiful, undignified semblance of life hardly seems an improvement

We should have a lot of uk based manufacturing
And a lot of government funded research so that we get more pricing control

Edited to add I don't disagree, @midgetastic, but good luck with that.
For a start there are so many places where manufacturing's a lot cheaper than in the UK, and governments are very happy for the pharma companies to fund the R&D ... not least because of the kickbacks to be had

There will always be a limit on how much public money is available to spend on an individual's life. In the NHS, in search and rescue....everything.

There is definitely a price to save a life. It's not just with NICE and medical treatments. Currently there is a value per fatality (VPF) for roads of approx £2m and for rail and air transport of approx £6m. So a road scheme such as a reconfigured junction expected to save 10 lives will be approved at a cost of up to £20m.

I was just going to quote the £2 million.

Missed the edit window to add a link, but this makes interesting reading too:

https://www.transparency.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/publications/29-06-2016-Corruption_In_The_Pharmaceutical_Sector_Web-2.pdf

It’s interesting that on the one hand people are arguing for assisted dying to be made legal, but on the other hand people are saying that the NHS is wrong for not wanting to fund the extension of a life that is destined to end.

If you are keeping someone alive who has a terminal illness and who is very likely suffering you need to ask yourself exactly who you are doing it for.

Snap with Parkinson’s, annoyingly

The NHS pays less for an individual drug than purchasers in many other countries - look at the nice guidelines under price and it says about NHS discount because it is probably the single biggest customer.
The government backed organisations such as universities and individual hospitals do a fair amount of research and but most drug discovery and development is done by pharma companies who will pay the drug, medical and nursing costs to NHS hospitals to run trials (strictly regulated) .
Yes the companies are making a profit but if a drug fails at the final hurdle that is billions spent and nothing to be made.

Wrong thread

In this case you’re doing it to have more time with your children and family. The averages aren’t proportionate yet, like all the drugs like myself cancer sufferers take we want to extent our lives and work. It isn’t just 6 months, it’s 6 months of being potentially pretty well and longer. I am sad to see it became a discussion related to keeping the elderly alive for longer with no quality of life. This isn’t what this drug will do. I’m 48 not 78.

Again, I think this is missing PP’s point which is that spending so much money extending poor quality of life for the elderly is potentially one reason why more money isn’t available for drugs like this. No one has suggested that this drug is akin to that.