Thursday, 10 September 2009

Socialised Medicine…

…there’s a good reason the US are wary of it:
Thousands of women are being denied better osteoporosis drugs because of unnecessarily restrictive Government guidelines, a doctor said last night.
All to save money.

Yet if you are a convicted murderer who’s upset about a birthmark, money’s no object
Professor David Reid, an expert on brittle bones, said the rules are so stringent that GPs are often prevented from giving alternative treatments to those suffering side-effects from their pills.

A once-a-year jab that could save thousands from the misery of broken bones is also not going to be assessed for use on the NHS in England and Wales for at least three years, despite being available in Scotland
Again, due to cost. Yes, it’s more expensive in the short term, but in the long term could well save money, as well as time for both patients and staff.

But bean counters rarely look at the long term when they are working on yearly budget forecasts.
It means that sufferers are being denied drugs that could have a major impact on their health and their quality of life. The news will reignite the debate about the evaluation system used by drugs rationing body the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
At least someone’s calling it what it really is…
Up to a quarter of patients taking the first-choice drug, the £50-a-year alendronic acid, will be troubled by indigestion, with some experiencing crippling stomach pain.

But under guidelines, sufferers may have to wait up to five years for their condition to deteriorate before being put on more expensive treatments with fewer side-effects.
The fact that those fewer side effects therefore means fewer symptoms to treat seems to have escaped the Simple Shopper…
Mr Reid said: 'The guidelines indicate that a lady can have alendronic acid at a certain level of risk.

'If that person doesn't tolerate the drug and goes back to their GP, the GP might have to say, "Your risk isn't high enough to have the next drug" - and frankly, that is just bad medical practice. It defies logic.'
Not to mention basic humanity…

But it seems they don’t select for ‘basic humanity’ when finding NICE workers:
A spokesman for NICE said the guidelines 'provide postmenopausal women with consistent access to the most cost effective treatments'.
Note that phrase – ‘cost effective’. Not ‘effective’. NICE isn’t about that, oh dear me no…

It’s all about money. Never let anyone tell you different.

Over at 'CiF', Jane Hamsher has a post on Obama and the 'public option' which...well, let's just say that it's impossible not to read it in the voice of a pudgy, tear-streaked two year old screaming 'Daddy promised me a pony and I want it RIGHT NOW!!!.

It's lovely when the mask slips and the Left reveal themselves for what they really are, isn't it?

12 comments:

James Higham said...

You've touched on a sore point here. I need one particular medication, freely available in Russia, for rhinitis.

It's not available here. In France, where it was originally produced, it is now watered down. Only in Russia can the full strength mix be found.

I consider it my right to decide to have that medicine or not, not the nanyy state's. To suggest that the pharmacists are cowboys over there and can't advise customers is to misunderstand the system.

There oare proscribed drugs over there which one can't get but most of them one can, subject to the pharmacist's warnings.

I'd like to know, in the past 12 years, where this nanny idea came from.

Henry Crun said...

As seen elsewhere, NICE should change the name of the agency to Clinical Unit for Not Treating the Sick

Dangerouslysubversivedad said...

My mother being one of those denied the necessary meds by our lovely system.

AntiCitizenOne said...

Linked from NDS.

Rob said...

English subsidising a higher standard of care in Scotland while not receiving it themselves.

Quelle surprise. Roll on independence.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

NICE = National Institute for Cost Effectiveness.

What did you expect?

Americans, take note! You don't have to guess what will happen, you just need to read a bit of recent history.

Unfortunately, being famously parochial, they probably won't.

Von Spreuth said...

Over at 'CiF', Jane Hamsher has a post on Obama and the 'public option' which...well, let's just say that it's impossible not to read it in the voice of a pudgy, tear-streaked two year old screaming 'Daddy promised me a pony and I want it RIGHT NOW!!!.

So? Can any one tell me why ANY one outside of the backwater minor country sandwiched between Canada and Mexico, should give a twopenny FUCK what Osama sais?

Sorry that should read OBama...maybe.

JuliaM said...

"To suggest that the pharmacists are cowboys over there and can't advise customers is to misunderstand the system."

All the better to control everything under the sun.

I wouldn't mind so much if they weren't also blindingly incompetent...

"...Clinical Unit for Not Treating the Sick..."

Lol!

"Linked from NDS."

Ta!

JuliaM said...

"English subsidising a higher standard of care in Scotland while not receiving it themselves."

Oh, yes. That too.

"Unfortunately, being famously parochial, they probably won't."

I'm not so sure - the furore over the Town Hall meetings have forced one hell of a climb down, and there's more road to go yet.

"Sorry that should read OBama...maybe."

Heh!

Von Spreuth said...

"English subsidising a higher standard of care in Scotland while not receiving it themselves."

Then blame the "Government".

Scotland does not recieve MORE to do this. They just give the spending of the PITTANCE the damn "English" alow them, different prioritys.

You receive a set sum. You can buy health care, or you can blow it on "cultural festivals".

Take the choice.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Von Spreuth: It's a fact that public spending per head is quite a bit higher in Scotland than it is in England.

Why, how, and whether that is just or fair, are quite different arguments.

Von Spreuth. said...

XX Weekend Yachtsman said...

Von Spreuth: It's a fact that public spending per head is quite a bit higher in Scotland than it is in England. XX

It is still THEIR choice WHAT it is spent on. Just because the wee Englanders would rather fund some bin lid bashing group of dread locked "musicians" just because they are a "minority" than on health, is ENTIRELY Englands fault.