 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||||
| Return to main web site (leave the Online Support Group) | To support the Mouth Cancer Foundation, you can now make online donations! |
The Mouth Cancer Foundation Online Support Group Mouth Cancer Forums Members Forums Medications, Treatment, Procedures Additional Private Drugs for NHS Care|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
At present, patients who choose to pay privately for drugs not funded on the NHS are required to pay for the NHS care that they would otherwise have received for free. The policy is being reviewed.
The Mouth Cancer Foundation would like to hear members' views (especially if you have had this experience) about this in order to form a view and forward it to the National Cancer Director's Office as soon as possible, but at the latest, by 22nd August 2008, in order for Prof Mike Richards to consider the evidence before he reaches a final conclusion. You can also send your evidence individually to additionaldrugsreview@dh.gsi.gov.uk.
This issue has been in the news recently. An opinion poll by the British Medical Association that indicates half of all patients in Britain believe they will be paying up front for their NHS care within a decade. Two thirds of those surveyed believed it is wrong that private companies could profit from providing NHS care, according to reports. The Times, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph all carry criticism of the BMA’s stance on co-payments in opinion pieces, after comments from BMA Chair Hamish Meldrum suggested that patients who paid privately for drugs might be denied NHS treatment.
Please add your views and comments below. Thanks. Best wishes Vinod  This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dr Vinod K Joshi, Disclaimer: Please see your own dentist/doctor for a proper diagnosis as my words should not, in any circumstances, be taken as dental/medical advice. "If you see what is small as it sees itself, and accept what is weak for what strength it has, and use what is dim for the light it gives, then all will go well. This is called Acting Naturally." Lao-Tsu, Tao Teh King |
||
|
 |
It dosn't effect me AT THE MOMENT but I think it is appalling that just because someone is forced to by medicine privately they are denied free NHS treatment. Does this then include over the counter medicines and herbal treatments and so on. Ridiculous, unfair, unjust and a disgrace. And if anyone asks I will tell them what I really think!
|
|||
|
I find this quite a difficult situation. In an ideal world EVERYBODY should have the drugs they need on the NHS but it appears current funding doesn't allow for this*. It seems totally unfair that if someone offers to pay for their drugs themselves this means that they then have to pay for ALL their treatment. But there are, obviously, some people who would never be able to afford to pay for anything themselves and they will be left with a second class service. If there are drugs that will REALLY make people better they should be freely available to all and this is what the NHS should be about.
*The NHS is currently wasting billions of pounds (paid to private companies)on an IT system that doesn't work properly. Gwyn |
||||
|
Discussing this with my husband, he has just pointed out that if the NHS is not providing a certain drug because they feel its efficacy is not proven, or it is not cost-effective then it is not part of the NHS Service. It is, therefore, nothing to do with the NHS if somebody wants to buy their own medicine. As Anthony suggests, it comes into the same category as herbal medicines or other complementary therapies, which everyone has the right to buy if they want (and can afford it) without it affecting their NHS treatment. The problem would arise, I suppose, if the drug needed to be monitored by an NHS doctor or interfered with the treatment they were getting on the NHS.
Gwyn |
||||
|
The so called United Kingdom does not have a "National Health" system, if so we would all be entitled to the same life saving drugs.
Why is the so called "NICE" procedures different than the Scottish equivalent one of them has to be wrong, If drugs are available in one part of the Country they should be available in all parts, if they have no proven benefits then that fine we are all in the same boat. Here's a question if our Great Leader Mr Brown became sick would he go to a hospital in Scotland and be treated with all the latest drugs of would he stay in England and take his chances like the rest of us that someone would turn him down (the last bit is a joke, he a politician that would never happen). Last year when I was sick as I was told that I was not entitled too any help, my options were to try and keep my small business running or close it, we used all our savings, sold our house at 20% below it then value, lived in one room converted from our office in a small factory one room, one toilet and nothing else. We have just moved out into a rented house, I will admit if I get sick again any money we had left over would be spent trying to stay alive. Call me cynical but the "National Health" third biggest organisation in the world, billions spent on what? France has roughly the same size population and has a World leading health service no problem with latest drugs, treatment, how come they can do it? Welcome to the "National Health" 2008. Tony |
||||
|
Before you even get to the ethics of whether a person shoud receive NHS care after self funding drug treatment, there is something fundamentally wrong when a specialist makes a clinical decision that a drug would be beneficial in improving/prolonging a persons life, but is unable to prescribe due to financial restraints and whether it is considered cost effective. This is a persons life!
There seems to be little discussion about the role of the drug companies in this situation, maybe if they thought less about profit and focused a little more on humanity, a solution to this problem may be found. A bit naive maybe, but it would be encouraging to think that people have enough compassion to put "doing the right thing" above making money. Judy |
||||
|
Still thinking about this one. Another point is that everybody who has worked has paid National Insurance, which is supposed to go towards our NHS care, so again it seems totally unfair to refuse someone NHS Treatment just because they have bought some of their drugs privately.
Gwyn |
||||
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Please see your own dentist/doctor for a proper diagnosis as my words should not, in any circumstances, be taken as dental/medical advice. "If you see what is small as it sees itself, and accept what is weak for what strength it has, and use what is dim for the light it gives, then all will go well. This is called Acting Naturally." Lao-Tsu, Tao Teh King |
|||
|
|
|
Disclaimer: Please see your own dentist/doctor for a proper diagnosis as my words should not, in any circumstances, be taken as dental/medical advice. "If you see what is small as it sees itself, and accept what is weak for what strength it has, and use what is dim for the light it gives, then all will go well. This is called Acting Naturally." Lao-Tsu, Tao Teh King |
|||
|
|
|
There is now a consultation on draft guidance for NHS Trusts on implementing the Richards review. This consultation is open now to end
in January 2009. It can be downloaded at: Draft guidance on NHS patients who wish to pay for additional private care With regard to this, we have already encountered the situation where the statement made in the Richards Review and endorsed by the Secretary of State that "no patient should lose their entitlement to NHS care they would have otherwise received, simply because they opt to purchase additional treatment for their condition" does not cover the situation where a patient receives a privately paid treatment when only palliative care would have been offered by the NHS. It is made clear in the draft guidance that scans etc in that situation must be paid privately. In the longer term, when NICE has got its act together this may not be an issue but it is an issue for patients receiving treatment today. In effect the Richards review offers them nothing. Your comments will be appreciated. Disclaimer: Please see your own dentist/doctor for a proper diagnosis as my words should not, in any circumstances, be taken as dental/medical advice. "If you see what is small as it sees itself, and accept what is weak for what strength it has, and use what is dim for the light it gives, then all will go well. This is called Acting Naturally." Lao-Tsu, Tao Teh King |
|||
|
The draft guidance seems to recommend a fragmented system of care, which by its very nature may leave it open to failures in communication, information exchange and accountability. It does not seem conducive to the provision of high quality seamless care!
It also seems to encourage the continuation of the "post code lottery" and is danger of creating a two tier healthcare system. There seems to be a general acceptance that these drugs are too expensive for the NHS to fund. Unforunately the health service is renowned for wasting money on various schemes/ideas. Maybe it is time to go back to basics, because the issues around treatment and funding have become so complex and raise so many issues, the ethos and priorities of the NHS seem to have been lost It is encouraging that the government appears to be adopting new flexible pricing systems for SOME drugs and that there will be a raise in the "cost per qualy" threshold for drug approval by NICE, but there still seems to be a lot of progress to be made to provide a system that can base its decisions on the needs of the person requiring treatment. |
||||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Mouth Cancer Foundation Online Support Group Mouth Cancer Forums Members Forums Medications, Treatment, Procedures Additional Private Drugs for NHS Care