nhs postcode lottery

[bluecardi]

Just read this www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270160/Betrayed-NHS-Doctor-gave-life-health-service-refused-vital- cancer-drugs-save-her.html

It's so awful. I would like to know which party will stop the nhs postcode lottery and let people get the treatment they need?

why does she have to cancel her wedding, though? she can get married for £75.

I don't know - perhaps she wanted the whole huge event.

didn't we agree to put a warning in the title if it's a DM thread....

It's a real person this is happening to - I don't care where I read the news story. I'm shocked by this.

wqhere's the evidence that this treatment will give her asnother 20 years?

You'd be shocked at the number of expensive 'hope' therapies that are sanctioned by the NHS.

"wqhere's the evidence that this treatment will give her asnother 20 years?"

well if the drug is being used in the uk and around the world) i'm sure they will have the data to show that it gives her a fighting chance.

Thankfully the conservatives have vowed to end this postcode lottery for drugs.

whilst having enormous sympathy for anyone in this position, there has to be a gatekeeper for allowing treatments to be funded by the NHS and that gatekeeper is NICE. the article says it is due to be approved next month.

If we allow every new breakthrough drug to be funded at will by the NHS it will soon be bankrupt. yes, the next door PCT funded it, but someone else would have been denied something else to fund it. Tories saying they will stop the postcode lottery is a joke. No party is tackling the real issue facing the NHS - the system will explode unless more money is bought into the system to fund ever increasing costs of new sorts of treatments and to deal with demographic timebomb or we start rationing what we give to people when in a more effective manner.

well, the alternative view is, 'NHS trusts waste money on unproven treatments thus denying other patients access to poroven therapies'.

The real story is that her cancer wasn't picked up on in the early stages.

Atlantis, how are the Tories planning to pay for this?

Many of these new cancer drugs are hugely expensive and have dubious efficacy. The NHS simply can't afford to pay for them all and we all have some very hard choices to make in the future about NHS rationing .

None of the parties can avoid it.

I don't mind postcode lotteries in principle - but I do if they are lotteries by quango rather than by democratic mandate.

We should have elected people in charge of the local health authorities.

The Lib Dems propose this. It is a good idea.

I also like the idea of elected people in charge of police authorities.

The Tories propose this. That is also a good idea.

At the moment, these quasi-political decisions are being taken by unaccountable people. It can't be sustained. Give power back to the people.

elected local health authoriteis? Its an awful idea. we cant even get 650 odd honest people in parliament yet alone running our health authorities, shcools etc etc. and what on earth would an elected representative KNOW about these increcibly complex drugs and treatments? jack sh*t. they'll just make kneejerk reactions about every new treatment based on the likelyhood of it ending up in the daily mail.

HerHonesty

Not true. It's not hard - you can require them to be NHS managers of a certain rank before they are allowed to stand.

If its only senior NHS managers who can stand then whats the point?? Why is it any different from having the system we have now?? Senior managers ARE accountable for decisions, they can easily lose their jobs over bad decisions.

Re ending the postcode lottery - never going to happen unless billions more are ploughed into the NHS. The point behind aloowing local differences is to allow local services to react to local need, to identify their own priorities. As for somehow trying to decide democratically which services to provide??? I'd like to see how that would happen?!

My point is that whilst of course scientific advice is the only guide, NICE as it currently works is totally insensitive to public concern.

The Health Secretary can just wash his hands of the whole affair - and the people at NICE can just say "oh, we are acting on the science alone". There are no real checks and balances ensuring that the public have a say.

I want the whole process to be more sensitive to the public.

And by the way - when was the last time an NHS manager was sacked for a bad decision?

But if she lived elsewhere in the uk she'd get the treatment - it seems beyond unfair.

Atlantis - do you have a link for the tories ending the postcode nhs lottery? I'd be really interested to read up on this.

Disclaimer: I am a 'senior' NHS manager.

Stories like this drive me mad, as they're so misleading and cause anxiety. First of all, it's not about drugs but an intervention.

It's actually not the PCT (the local NHS body) that has said she shouldn't have it, its NICE. NICE make two kinds of recommendations: TAGs (technology advice guidance) which is centrally funded and has to be delivered and guidelines which are optional but considered good practice. If the evidence was overwhelming, it would be a TAG.

longfingernails why should NICE be sensitive to public concern? It's there to make decisions based on clinical evidence, not scaremongering by the DM.

The Tory plan to fund cancer drugs really annoys me. Why just cancer? Are you less deserving if you have liver failure or COPD? Make up your mind Dave. And what are you going to cut in order to fund it? Some of the returns (quality adjusted life years or QALYs) you get with some of these drugs and treatments are pretty tenuous.

And don't get me started on publically elected people to manage the NHS. Local councils are a shining example of fairness and accountability...

yup the website is www.whatanemptypromise.co.uk

longfingernails the point is that you cant let human emotions guide decisions alone like this. nhs will go bankrupt.

Sorry, I think the public should be listened to.

The NHS won't go bankrupt because the budgets will be finite. Those elected will have to decide.

Of course they have to take clinical evidence into account but the simple fact is that as far as I can see, NICE is completely unaccountable to the public.

The Health Secretary won't touch them because they are a useful lightning rod for difficult decisions.

I think every government and quasi-government body spending public money should have as much public input as possible.

completely agree with queenofwhatever

there is no evidence that it will extend her life at all and as for not getting married, she could still do that and if she wanted a marriage she would

why should NICE be accountable to the public - there needs to be an independant body to regulate these things otherwise money will be wasted on all sorts that just doesn't work!

I'm also annoyed with the tory plan to fund more cancer drugs because there are thousands of other conditions that need more money too but they have picked up on cancer because it will get them more votes

Disclaimer: I went to school with Becky (the woman in the Daily Mail article). She is a real person to me.

To address some of your points, there IS evidence it will extend her life.

It looks like the NICE guidelines may change on this in the near future - but this may be too late for Becky.

Becky speaks eloquently about this here: iwradio.co.uk/newscentre/island-news/island-woman-denied-life-prolonging-treatment-937

I agree with bluecardi - other people are getting this treatment in the UK - just because they live somewhere else. How is that fair?

The point about her using her wedding budget to fund the treatment is really irrelevant. The point is: who should fund it? Becky has only just qualified as a doctor and so has big debts, no house or savings, she cannot get a loan as she has cancer.

Sorry the link did not hyperlink. Here it is again
iwradio.co.uk/newscentre/island-news/island-woman-denied-life-prolonging-treatment-937

hurrah