Quoting Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ant McWatt comment ed April 26th: > > >I think the idea is that if the British government are serious about > >reducing the tax burden of the NHS on UK taxpayers, one of the better ways > >for them to do this would be to set-up in-house divisions within the NHS to > >provide drugs and medical equipment (and the research in these) rather than > >relying on private companies to provide them. You can see such a policy as > >largely cutting out the middle man i.e. the shareholders in these private > >companies. I state "largely" as there probably would be _in practice_ > >certain specialised drugs and equipment that only some private companies > >could provide (either due to licensing, technical or economic reasons). > > Platt then asked April 27th: > > It would appear that such a change would virtually eliminate the free market > as the provider of drugs and medical equipment, risking the loss of Dynamic > Quality. Do you see this as a concern? > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Platt, > > Good question. Yes I think it's a concern that would have to be kept in > mind though the present arrangement isn't sustainable nor particularly > Dynamic. For instance, see a couple of sections from a recent article from > the UK's "Healthcare Equipment and Supplies" journal in the following: > > > Watchdog deplores NHS drug bills > > February 20th 2007 > > By Gregory Roumeliotis > > The NHS is paying up to ten times more than it should for some drugs and > needs to reassess its pharmaceutical procurement mechanisms, the Office of > Fair Trading (OFT) has concluded. > > In a damning report, the OFT identifies a number of drugs where prices are > significantly out of line with patient benefits and blames the > pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) for the excess expenditure. > > The PPRS is a voluntary scheme negotiated every five years between the > Department of Health (DH) and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical > Industry (ABPI). It consists of price-capping and price-controlling > components. > > --cut--- > > The OFT argues that the profit cap has had little effect on company > behaviour, since... neither the profit cap nor the price cut helps ensure > that the price of medicines reflects the health benefits they bring to > patients, according to the OFT. > > Focussing prices on the needs of patients rather than on the costs [read > profits - Ant] of drug companies would be good for both patients and for > business, said OFT chief executive John Fingleton. > > It would allow more patients better access to more effective treatments and > it would focus drug company innovation and investment on the areas where > patients need it the most, creating more valuable drugs in the future. > > The regulator believes the current regime is unsustainable because hundreds > of millions of pounds are spent every year on expensive drugs, for example > for cholesterol, stomach acid and high blood pressure, which have > alternatives that may be slightly less effective but much less expensive. > > Therefore, the OFT wants to see a patient-focussed value based pricing > scheme, such as that found in countries like Sweden, Australia and Canada, > where the prices that the government pays for medicines reflect the > therapeutic benefits they bring to patients. > > The OFT estimates that this would release in the region of £500 million of > expenditure that could be used more effectively, giving patients better > access to medicines and other treatments which they may currently be denied. > > http://www.hesmagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2042326 > > In other words, if most drugs were supplied "in house" by the NHS (rather > than private drug companies), inefficient schemes such as the > "pharmaceutical price regulation scheme" (PPRS) wouldn't arise in the first > place to be a burden on the taxpayer. Also note the reference to Canada (as > a role model) which Arlo has mentioned recently in comparison to the US > health system.
No doubt the production and distribution of drugs could be improved and perhaps emphasis on costs related to the benefits to patients might prove practical in the short run. My concern is for sustaining the funds needed for research and development of new drugs, a long term process and fraught with risk. Nevertheless, I recognize the complexity of this issue, as with health care in general. No system is perfect, for sure. Thanks for your input. Regards, Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
