The Price of Life.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I am 5 years of retirement amd through out my life l have paid my taxes and National Insurance to insure that my life is worth survival, so why is it if l become ill, would not be able to get the drugs l need to survive, as the NHS cannot afford the drug.

We have heard today that a drug costing approx under a pound is going to be used for a certain illness, would not put a strain on the NHS.

The cost of a life is paramount, therefore the NHS should provide that drug, no matter what the cost, we have already heard that another drug that prolong life is too expensive to buy. WHY isn't life important, and we are paying for that drug via Insurance, there is something wrong somewhere.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I am 5 years of retirement amd through out my life l have paid my taxes and National Insurance to insure that my life is worth survival, so why is it if l become ill, would not be able to get the drugs l need to survive, as the NHS cannot afford the drug.

We have heard today that a drug costing approx under a pound is going to be used for a certain illness, would not put a strain on the NHS.

The cost of a life is paramount, therefore the NHS should provide that drug, no matter what the cost, we have already heard that another drug that prolong life is too expensive to buy. WHY isn't life important, and we are paying for that drug via Insurance, there is something wrong somewhere.

Sorry Arthur, I can't ascertain exactly what you are talking about and if this drug is something you personally need or something you read about.

These drugs are often not the difference between life and death, they usually offer a slightly better treatment which isn't always proven and may vary from person to person. I.e "Shown it could be more effective in 20% of people". If a simple pill would 'cure' someone then the NHS would probably go for it, not least because it would be cheaper than continued care.

The NHS however hasn't got a bottomless pit of money to spend on new, often experimental, and very expensive drugs. It needs to decide how best to effectively treat the widest amount of people at an affordable level and often these treatments are of marginal benefit to a very small amount of people, at a widely disproportionate cost. The NHS will, hopefully, have statistically worked out how their budget can best serve the widest group possible. Sadly, such an impersonal approach can mean an individual can be without the best treatment possible but hopefully that's very rare and the difference negligible.

Sadly because the NHS is not run by doctors any more but by managers who don't
deal with the real world just look at money rather than doctors/nurses.
IMHO nurses/sisters should have more input on the running of the hospital.

[Hugh]

and how would that make the drugs and operations more affordable?

[Damien]

Originally Posted by dgardner

Sadly because the NHS is not run by doctors any more but by managers who don't
deal with the real world just look at money rather than doctors/nurses.
IMHO nurses/sisters should have more input on the running of the hospital.

Unfortunately the correct way to deal with this issue is to ensure the people deciding such matters are doing so based on money and statistical evidence of what is in the best interest of everyone who uses the NHS.

Doctors and Nurses may be swayed by emotional experience of a particular case or condition. While that could mean better treatment for 1 patient elsewhere another 5 patients with lesser known conditions might experience considerably worse treatment because the money was directed to the former patient.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I am 5 years of retirement amd through out my life l have paid my taxes and National Insurance to insure that my life is worth survival, so why is it if l become ill, would not be able to get the drugs l need to survive, as the NHS cannot afford the drug.

We have heard today that a drug costing approx under a pound is going to be used for a certain illness, would not put a strain on the NHS.

The cost of a life is paramount, therefore the NHS should provide that drug, no matter what the cost, we have already heard that another drug that prolong life is too expensive to buy. WHY isn't life important, and we are paying for that drug via Insurance, there is something wrong somewhere.

I am not really sure what you are on about. But, Damien has expressed a massive problem the NHS faces quite well.

The NHS has limited resources. New drugs and treatments are often experimental, and often expensive. In the case of certain illnesses, they can cost the NHS thousands of pounds over the course of a treatment.

The choice the NHS faces is harsh, but actually quite simple. Put yourself in the position of a Hospital manager. A patient has (say) cancer. There is a radical new drug that costs 10s of thousands of pounds, and may help them live a little longer. You also have 10 people wanting hip replacement. There is not enough in your budget to treat all 11 patients, and the cancer treatment costs the same as 5 hip replacements. What do you do? Save the one person (who might live 1 year longer), and condemn the other patients to another year or so of agony?

Oh, and before you start accusing the drug companies of profiteering. Yes, they do make high profits. However, do you know how much it costs to develop and test drugs? I don't know how much it costs now, but in the early 90s, I was told it cost Pfizer £100,000,000 to develop and test Viagra (a friend worked for them at the time).

[superbiatch]

Originally Posted by Stuart

The NHS has limited resources.

More limited than ever before, non-pay budgets slashed to a bare minimum and we're expected to keep services to the standard they were previously. It just can't happen and unfortunately patients will bear the brunt of it

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Stuart

The NHS has limited resources.

Oh yes very limited when owners of drug companies put prices up 1000% and come out with crap like the NHS ‘doesn’t care what it costs’. If they got to grips with their drug buying arm and actually claimed the discounts avaliable that'd save a lot of cash

[superbiatch]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Oh yes very limited when owners of drug companies put prices up 1000% and come out with crap like the NHS ‘doesn’t care what it costs’. If they got to grips with their drug buying arm and actually claimed the discounts avaliable that'd save a lot of cash

Yes, thats a very good point also!

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Well lets put it this way, if or my wife need treatment and need a drug to keep us alive, and the NHS say it is too expensive to buy this drug, then why the earth have l have into the state all my life and cannot get the drug l need to stay alive.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I am 5 years of retirement amd through out my life l have paid my taxes and National Insurance to insure that my life is worth survival, so why is it if l become ill, would not be able to get the drugs l need to survive, as the NHS cannot afford the drug.

We have heard today that a drug costing approx under a pound is going to be used for a certain illness, would not put a strain on the NHS.

The cost of a life is paramount, therefore the NHS should provide that drug, no matter what the cost, we have already heard that another drug that prolong life is too expensive to buy. WHY isn't life important, and we are paying for that drug via Insurance, there is something wrong somewhere.

The issue is that you aren't paying for that drug via NI any more than I have the right to expect better care from the NHS than someone else because I pay more taxes than they do.

The NHS is a socialised healthcare system - we contribute as individuals and our contributions are shared between society, there is no relationship at all between contribution and service received just as there is no relationship between the services received and the amount that must be paid.

If the service isn't as people would wish it to be everyone has to pay more tax in order to provide the funding.

The alternative is private insurance. If you were to pay that the NHS would be quite adequate for emergency and GP care with the insurance as a backup for more major issues.

While it is pants that people with money get better healthcare that is sadly the way it is. Healthcare costs money, drugs cost money, because the people providing the healthcare and the drugs must make money to live and to recoup investment.

With that in mind the NHS has to cater for the population as a whole. As a socialised healthcare provider it has to do the best it can with the resources it has for the majority of people - which means that a fairly comfortably well off person like myself who pays 4 figures in tax a month receives the exact same service as someone who has never worked a day in their life.

Just in case you weren't aware Arthur National Insurance receipts don't cover health and welfare costs, these have to draw from central taxation to be funded. Yes it's totally inaccurate to refer to it as National Insurance, though I think I've ranted on in the past about the need to ring fence funding both for the NHS and welfare so that we can all see the contribution to healthcare and social welfare quite clearly on our payslips.

---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Well lets put it this way, if or my wife need treatment and need a drug to keep us alive, and the NHS say it is too expensive to buy this drug, then why the earth have l have into the state all my life and cannot get the drug l need to stay alive.

What have you put into the state and what have you taken our Arthur?

If we're going to talk about things in this manner are you sure you have actually put more into the state than you have received? I'm not being funny here - most people actually haven't.

I would suggest you've put into the state in return for all the municipal services, healthcare, welfare, education for mini-Arthurs, etc you and your dependents have received over the years

EDIT: I'm not hugely enamoured with the NHS at the moment myself by the way.

Originally Posted by My Facebook Status

Ignitionnet loves the NHS. Having to wait 1.5 weeks for a GP appointment then having to leave due to over 40 minutes of overrun from ONE person before me is great. Oh and it's a mere 1.5 weeks until the next one. So cool that I can see a brain surgeon if need be within a couple of days, but have to referred first by a GP I have to wait 1.5 weeks and have about an hour free for a 10 minute appointment

[dilligaf1701]

MMMmmm - I recetly got prescribed some medication I don't actually /need/ to make me healthy (well I don't think so, it depends on your point of view I guess). So that makes me a waste of momey for the NHS (as in giving me the that medication).

I suppose in theory I should turn it down but I admit I'm to selfish to. What that says about me I don't know

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Dilligaf-1701

MMMmmm - I recetly got prescribed some medication I don't actually /need/ to make me healthy (well I don't think so, it depends on your point of view I guess). So that makes me a waste of momey for the NHS (as in giving me the that medication).

I suppose in theory I should turn it down but I admit I'm to selfish to. What that says about me I don't know

If it's what I think it is I say that if it improves the quality of your life then so be it..You have enough worries without having to feel guilty about drugs that help you to have a fuller life.

[dilligaf1701]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

If it's what I think it is I say that if it improves the quality of your life then so be it..You have enough worries without having to feel guilty about drugs that help you to have a fuller life.

I hear what you are saying, but even I admit that £30 per shot is very steep for what it is.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

...The cost of a life is paramount....

Since when?

Anyway, what about fertility treatment? Not exactly "life saving", and usually costs well in excess of £5000 - should the NHS scrap this and spend the money on, say, more liver transplants?