What do you think about the NHS refusing to pay for treatment if patients buy top ups?

[MsDemeanor]

People with cancer who are told by their doctors that a certain drug may save their lives but it isn't available on the NHS, and who then take out loans/use life savings/sell their house to buy the drugs, are being told this means they will no longer be eligible for any NHS treatment at all for their cancer - no blood tests, no chemo, no radiotherapy, zilch.
I personally think this is absolutely wicked, and is basically sentencing people to death.
What do you think?

I think I agree with the current situation, but is is really complicated...

i completely agree, i know some one who is having to sell thier house as thier grown up dd has terminal cancer, the drug you talk off could prolong her life indefinately, could be few weeks a few months but wont be years.

without the drug her docs have said that she would be probably already have died but yet the nhs wont pay for it for her. she has her own dc's aged from 3 upto 18 so every extra day is important to her and them.

i think that it is so sad that where you live could either save your life or sentence you to death. every one should have the same chances as any one else

I think it's terrible. THey've paid in to the NHS like everyone else.

Why do you agree Morningpaper? To me, it's like saying, if you offer your dyslexic child extra tuition, you will lose your right to a place in a state school because it will be 'two tier education'. My child has special needs. I am actively looking into giving him private speech therapy at the moment, and would be devastated if that meant, say, he couldn't go to school or see his NHS occupational therapist.
And that's not even a life or death situation.

I read that some doctors are planning to apply for a judicial review - I think it's absolutely appalling and I can't understand how it is even legal to deny someone NHS treatment on this basis.

On the face of it it sounds terrible.

Is it to do with, they don't know how the drugs will interact with NHS therapies if they're very new? Like if NHS give a radioactive therapy it may combine with the drug the person has taken privately and have a bad effect? And/or that they wouldn't have access to the notes from the private treatments about dosages etc?

Just trying to think why this would be as it seems very cruel. They must have a reason surely?

I think it is a crazy situation - I know the argument is that the NHS has to be (or be seen to be equitable), but there are examples of inequality all through the NHS -eg that certain categories of patients with chronic illnesses get all their prescription medication free whereas other patients with chronic illnesses (eg asthma - potentially fatal if not well controlled) have to pay for their drugs. Everyone knows this is unfair but apart from in Wales (where prescription charges have been abolished for all) nothing has been done.
I think Alan Johnsons arguement could be easily be turned against him.

Chukkypig, it's not to do with drug interactions. It's purely because it's supposed to be unfair that some people can afford the right drugs and others can't. The obvious answer is to fund the best treatment for everyone. Other than that, if people are pepared to save the NHS money and fund their own lifesaving treatment, I feel very upset that they are being told that all their treatment will now be chargeable, as this will sentence people to certain death.

I find the way that this policy is carried out to be bizarre and hypocritical. There is nothing stopping anyone for having certain treatment entirely privately and then having subsequent treatment on the NHS eg having private IVF yet having birth on the NHS. And the NHS happily promote the patient's ability to say pay extra for a single room whilst receiving treatment on the NHS. And currently I could enjoy the benefit of private medicine for almost every event in my life, yet would be entitled to get any treatment necessary on the NHS if I needed to.

And yet for someone with a longterm illness there seems to be this sudden line in the sand whereby they have no ability to fund any part of their treatment if the NHS is unable or unwilling to do so.

it's a bloody awful situation, i've been tempted to just buy drugs from the internet and not tell them

I can see the principle that you are either a private patient or an NHS patient. And that it would be awful to have a ward of cancer patients, some of whom are getting 'better' drugs because they are richer. But the NHS can't afford to pay for all the latest drugs, because the manufacturer's make them so expensive, because they are so expensive to research and produce within the time limit of the patent... etc ...

I think it's a tricky call

But its not a principle applied anywhere else in the NHS. If someones takes their child to a homeopath or even a private paediatrician for their excema, or buys ABA for autistic kids they don't have to pay for their MMR or your health visitor, do you?
Should everyone who has a tutor, a dyspraxia specialist etc have their state school place taken away?
In any cancer ward there will be people who have better nutrition, more loving families and other things that make a difference. Some of these people have been told their only chance is drug X by their NHS consultant, but when they agree to pay for drug X, they are told they have to pay £10K for the treatment that anyone else would get free.
Surely if this is a principle, people must be offered the chance to opt out of the NHS and get private insurance so they can have the best treatment if they are dying. I am not rich, but if it was a matter of dying or maybe seeing my kids grow up I would sell my house to buy the right drugs but if I was charged 10K a month, I still wouldn't be able to afford it and leave my family with a stable home.

Life is a bitch and its unfair that some people die of cancer. Particularly when young people lose their lives.

I think that people should be allowed to use their money to pay for a drug privately. Although the issue I can see is that they might be under a private consultant for some of their treatment, and under an nhs consultant for other treatment. Having two consultants might be like having too many cooks spoiling the brothe. They need to pick one consultant or another.

A lot of private drugs are not well known. Patients who pay for drugs privately are a great test of the clinical effectiveness of a drug.

However I find awful that those who opt for private drugs are expected to pay for the drugs that they previously had on the NHS.

It is actually applied elsewhere. Round here if you choose to pay for a cycle of IVF because the NHS will not fund you, you immediately become ineligible for future NHS treatment. In Oxfordshire (where I live) that means if you were under 34 they wouldn't treat you, but by the time you got to the age they would, your chances of success would have dropped.

My MiL is paying to go see a consultant neurologist because she reckons paying £200 is better than waiting six months for an appt and finding it's too late - esp. as it's the same doctor and she can transfer to NHS care if she does need further treatment.

So it's not just about cancer, it's across the board. Besides which, you do get differential levels of care depending on where you live in the future and if you live in a more affluent area, chances are your local trust may be more generous on the funding.

But this woman herel;

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4040146.ece

was told by her NHS consultants that she needed a certain drug but financial constraints means she couldn't have it, but if she by a miracle bought it, then she would lose her right to all other treatment including chemo. She was an NHS occupational therapist and paid into the NHS all her life.
She is now dead.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lifeandstyle/health/article4040146.ece

It happens in audiology. My FIL got fed up of the waiting list and bought private hearing aids. Unfortunately his hearing loss is so awful the behind the ear hearing aids he got are useless. He feels that the private audiologists were sharks for selling them to him.

I think my FIL needs to be assessed for a cochelar implant or maybe a bone anchored hearing aid. Yet these things are not affordable privately.

whomovedmychocolate - but it is only applied for that treatment: if you opt for private treatment for IVF you still can get an NHS funded birth. Though IVF funding still isn't done fairly across the board in any case. If you have your first birth privately you can still get subsequent births on the NHS too.

i noticed an ad on tv today offering a walk in clinic for £100 consultation, then they refer you to their private clinics.

What about women using independent midwives? They're not then expected to pay for their NHS treatment if they then have to transfer to hospital are they? (Hope I haven't just given the Dept of Health ideas!!)

shhhhh!

Completely agree MsDemeanor - it's sick.

We've paid for lots of things to do with ds1's autism because the services are so inadequate (read non-existent). I would be steaming if for example sometime in the future he develops epilepsy (common in children with his type of autism) and the NHS refused to pay for his treatment because we've used private SALTS etc in the past.

They use that 'if we treat your child then it wouldn't be fair on the other children waiting' argument all the time. The thing that really sucks though is that if you say 'OK I want to take on the plight of the other children as well and try to improve their lot as well' you're told you can't because they won't discuss other cases.

Running through this and some of the anti-private school themes is a sense that it is in some way immoral and unfair of people to have worked hard and earned money which they then wish to use to improve their chances in education or life, or that of their family.

I think it is very wrong - you should always be able to use the NHS, that is what it is there for. And if a drug is simply not available because of cost and you fund it yourself, then that should not then prohibit you from having the care you would have got.

It reminds me of the pensions issue - I read somewhere that saving for your old age in the form of a pension was a good thing to do - BUT to be aware that in order for you to be better off than you would be if you had saved NOTHING at all, and therefore have maximum government help, you would need to have saved a fairly phenomenal amount.

Obviously you need to help people who are the poorest. But what about people who have squandered the most? There is huge inequality in this country created by an attempt at equality.

So, by this logic, people who who opt for single jabs for their kids should forfeit all rights on behalf of their kids for the rest of their lives to NHS treatment.

This is ludicrous. Hw bout they return all the tax money ever received to individulas for whom they refuse treatment. In fact how about we only allow the NHS to treat people who don't put anything into it -- whether because they can't work or simply choose not to.

I thought the whole point of the NHS was that is was avaiable to EVERYONE.

Wonder how many MPs have private medical insurance? Do you think we should forbid them from NHS treatment?