Cancer drugs for eye-treatment? You must be joking!

When I talk to constituents, friends and family, it is clear we have all had different experiences with the NHS.  Some are terrifying, others comforting, but in the end it is these personal experiences that shape our general view of Britain’s health system.  I don’t think anyone would disagree that better patient care — the core aim of the current Health Bill – is a highly desirable goal. However, better quality care cannot be simply defined as more control by medical practitioners.   It needs to include real patient power and the highest standards of safety.  I don’t think the Conservatives can honestly say that Andrew Lansley’s current plan leads to tangible patient power.  It merely transfers powers from administrators to medical professionals — the producer interest.

The British press doesn’t like to miss a tragic NHS story, and here’s one in the making –- a local health authority in the South East is allowing doctors to treat patients suffering from a degenerative eye condition with a drug that was developed and is only licensed as a cancer treatment.  The unlicensed treatment is being prescribed by doctors (despite concern expressed by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists) because it costs less than the one approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which sets NHS drug policy based on clinical trials. While I’m all in favour of cost-saving in all public services, and I believe that a competitive health market is the only way to deliver the level of reform required to make any real difference, what concerns me about this practice is the willingness to put cost efficiency above the best interest of the patient. It shows a dangerous lack of regard for the process of drug approval.

The eye disease is Wet Age-related Macular Degeneration (“Wet AMD”), a common cause of vision loss in older people. Lucentis, manufactured by Novartis, is the approved treatment.  It’s expensive — reported at £900 a shot.  But it’s approved for the condition.   Cancer drug Avastin is much cheaper.  It comes in larger doses and is being divided up in to several treatments via syringe – a process which carries the risk of infection. Older people, the main sufferers of Wet AMD, deserve the best treatment available. According to a recent study, the 65s and older contributed £40 Billion to the UK economy in 2010.   At the very least, as patients they deserve the choice – the approved treatment or the cheaper option that might have a similar effect but carries more risk.  I know which I would choose.

The NHS has long been a black hole, swallowing billions to pay managers and meet targets seemingly set by people on another planet. The focus on healthcare costs though must not trump patient care, nor undermine the legitimacy of systems in place that ensure medicines are safe and effective. Cameron is yet to prove to us that he and his Health team aren’t still living on that other planet.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Cancer drugs for eye-treatment? You must be joking!

  1. Maureen Gannon says:

    Sorry to say that they are all on another planet,they see the workers of this country as mere pawns in their game of chess. My daughter is a specialist nurse in peadiatric ITU she has voted for strike action against what they are doing to her and those like her, I don’t want to bore you but I need to give some of her history, she started nursing at the age of 17 on a yob scheme for £25 a week, she is now 46 and at the top of her ladder she is even on call to Great Ormond st to work as a team of twelve to operate a machine that saves babies lives she hasn’t got there by luck or privilege but by hard work and determination indeed when studying for another rung she even went back on students pay to get there, she is also what is known as a Blue Lamper. this is when a baby from wherever in the country needs specialist care she is in the back of that ambulance keeping that baby alive untill it could be got back to the hostpital in London , a couple of weeks ago she was called to a baby 73 miles away they had to stay at the home of that baby untill they could stabalise him enough for the journey back she did an EIGHTEEN HOUR day and a round trip of 146 miles. what do they want to do to her and others like her ?: why only to work till they are 68 and have to pay more for a pension that they intend to cut. she has said if people knew what was going on with cutting away here and there they would be up in arms, I know this was off topic Roger but along with WET AMD it illistrates just how out of touch they are. VOTE UKIP

  2. David C says:

    I’m rather suprised at you taking this ‘money-no-object’ approach Roger. In the real world, if we spend more on a particular eye treatment there is less to spend on something else. And as for the business about having to divide up doses for injection, this appears to be because the manufacturer is not making smaller doses available in an attempt to stop its use for wet AMD, as it would prefer to sell its more expensive treatment.
    It seems to me that there is a struggle going on between the health purchasers, who are trying to save taxpayer money, and the drug company, who are trying to extract the maximum, as their shareholders would expect them to do.

  3. Delores Orme says:

    Eye diseases can be prevented by taking in some supplements that supports eye health.*

    Very latest content straight from our personal web page

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s