[Ip-health] Access to Medicines scandal in the UK...

[Ellen 't Hoen]

>
> Boris Johnson is Member of Parliament for Henley:
>
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/online-edition/columnists/29273/blinding-incom=
peten
> ce.thtml
>
> Blinding incompetence
>
> Imagine the terror of going blind.
>
> Think what it must be like to lose the most vital of your senses, and to =
lose
> it rapidly. First it becomes difficult to judge distances, and you have t=
o
> give up the car. Then you can't quite make out the newspaper as well as y=
ou
> used to, and then you can't read it at all; and then even the television
> becomes invisible, and you can no longer see your wife; and you must be a=
ble
> to see her because apart from anything else you are her chief carer and s=
he is
> severely disabled.
>
> Imagine the shock of then being separated from her, even though you have =
spent
> a lifetime together, because in the view of the state you are no longer f=
it to
> look after her.
>
> That is the impending fate of Dennis Devier, 83, who lives in my constitu=
ency.
> What has been so appalling to those of us trying to help him is the disco=
very
> that there are thousands - at least 16,000 elderly people - who are going
> blind because they cannot get a cheap treatment that is readily available=
 in
> other countries, from Germany to Mexico to Pakistan.
>
> These British people are losing their sight not just because of NHS
> underfunding, but mainly because of the incompetence and statism of the
> system. The world is going dark for thousands of elderly people because w=
e
> won't let clinicians make independent decisions, and because of the
> indifference of the Government to an electorally insignificant minority.
>
> Mr Devier fought in the RAF. He has contributed to the NHS all his life, =
and
> yet he has no choice - if he wants to save his sight, and if he wants to =
stay
> with his wife - but to dig ever deeper into his dwindling savings and pay=
 for
> exorbitantly expensive private treatment.
>
> Today, he is due to have another injection in an eye, in the hope of
> alleviating his wet macular degeneration. That injection alone will cost
> =A31,793. In an effort to save his sight, he has now spent approaching =
=A38,000,
> and he is not a rich man.
>
> I suppose it is irrelevant that he once risked his life for his country, =
but I
> find it utterly incredible that we are posing these alternatives to a man=
 at
> his time of life - cough up, or say goodbye to your eyes.
>
> What has gone wrong with our priorities, when we can allow comparatively
> affluent people to have essentially cosmetic operations on the NHS - wart
> removal, tattoo removal, varicose veins - and yet we cannot find the cash=
 to
> save an old man's sight?
>
> It is bad enough that we live in an age of the postcode lottery, and that
> there are people over the river in Berkshire who are getting the injectio=
ns
> free, on the NHS. It is outrageous that Oxfordshire has the lowest per ca=
pita
> health funding, receiving only 85 per cent of the per capita funding of t=
he
> next most cash-starved area; and it is, of course, wrong that life-prolon=
ging
> medicines of all kinds are available free in Scotland - subsidised by the
> taxpayers of England - and yet are denied to the English on grounds of
> expense.
>
> But the real scandal is the way the political masters of the health servi=
ce
> are so supine in dealing with drug companies and in getting a good deal f=
or
> patients.
>
> Today Mr Devier will be injected with Lucentis, a drug which is made by t=
he
> prodigious Californian company Genentech, said to be the very originator =
of
> the biotechnology industry.
>
> Genentech has annual revenues of more than $9 billion and a net income of=
 more
> than $2 billion per year. Though I have no complaint about that whatever =
- I
> applaud the proceeds of capitalism - I make these points to show that
> Genentech is not short of a bob or two, unlike Mr Devier, and that it is
> important that we strike the best possible bargain on behalf of people in=
 his
> position.
>
> Genentech makes another drug, Avastin, and though Avastin is technically =
a
> cancer drug, it is now widely agreed to be just as good as Lucentis at
> treating wet macular degeneration.
>
> I talked to Michael Lavin, a consultant surgeon in Manchester, who is sad=
 and
> amazed to see how many elderly British people are going blind because of =
the
> lack of a cheap alternative to Lucentis. "All retinal specialists are agr=
eed
> that the two drugs are equally good at treating the condition," he said.
>
> There are only two differences between them. The first is that if Lucenti=
s
> were free on the NHS, it would cost about =A3750 million a year, whereas =
Avastin
> has been on the market as a cancer treatment for years, and would only co=
st =A34
> million a year for eye patients across Britain.
>
> Mr Lavin can give Avastin to his private patients, and he buys it in from
> Florida at a cost of only $30 a dose. But he cannot give it to NHS patien=
ts,
> because the second difference is that Lucentis is licensed for eye use in=
 this
> country, but Avastin is not. And why not?
>
> Well, look at the money. Genentech has spent huge sums developing Lucenti=
s;
> the stock market requires that the company earns back the cost of the res=
earch
> and development.
>
> So there is no way on earth the Pharma boys are going to seek a licence f=
or
> Avastin, when they would be effectively cutting their own throats.
>
> What does Genentech want?
>
> It wants the NHS to throw in the towel and buy Lucentis, and in a terribl=
e way
> it wants the press to be full of stories about poor old men who face
> blindness.
>
> And yet what no one seems to understand is that it is entirely open to th=
e NHS
> to call the bluff of the pharmaceutical giant. There are plenty of unlice=
nsed
> drugs already being used, or rather, licensed drugs being used for other
> purposes. Patricia Hewitt could get a grip and tell the PCTs to use Avast=
in,
> even though it is not licensed.
>
> But Hewitt dithers and passes the buck. She blames Nice, or the drugs
> companies, when it is up to her to step in. But she won't, because of the
> incompetence of the Government in dealing with the money-making necessiti=
es of
> the pharmaceutical companies, and because of her own blindness to what is
> going on in the NHS.