I’d like to say I’m shocked and apauled (if I could spell it…) but sadly I’m not, I’m just greatly irritated that once more they are proving themselves to be penneywise and pound foolish.
Utterly disgraceful – and yet another example of a complete lack of so called joined up thinking. We can save from one budget here, without noticing what effect it will have on our budget impact overall. 🙁
Cutting ‘its’ costs. What an odd headline. Surely it is actually a decision about controlling NHS costs by not doing something clearly beneficial for many on the grounds that more benefit can be done by using the money for something else, funding the bureaucracy ;-). Whether that is true is not something I can judge and ethically I am not sure how one can judge the quality of 100 lives against saving one, for example. But with finite resources there is always going to be rationning and it’s just going to get worse.
My turn to stir up controversy on your blog.
It’s a poorly written emotive article, imo. I am all too aware of the impact of Alzheimers, and I’m familiar with the need to clutch at straws of hope wrt treatment. But in fact Aricept is rarely noticeably effective, and almost always has side-effects which are often severe enough to stop treatment. The evidence that it works well in mild disease is only anecdotal, and in fact, the guidance which says it can be prescribed with a MMSE between 20 and 10 will mean that it can still be prescribed to most of those who will benefit from it.
The full guidance is at nice.org.uk .
When I was reading around it I found a quote from Alison’s old boss pointing out what Jan said and that the £60m would be better spent on care for sufferers. Rationning has to happen and I think I would prefer NICE to do it than politicians.
When I go to see a doctor, I really would prefer to be given the treatment which is appropriate for me, not that which is suited to “most people”.
And I would prefer that the doctor I see should have the discretion to determine what treatment is most appropriate for me, not politicians and not some committee.
I must admit that while I don’t think the press will ever allow the facts to get in the way of a good story, when I read this I did think that the author, a “consultant in old age psychiatry”, seemed to be a well qualified source.
There is nothing to stop you doing that Tim. It’s called private health care and it costs an awful lot more to provide than a generalised health service.
Fair comment from Jan, it’s a difficult one isn’t it? Youy sort of assume that if a drug company has invested so many £££ and over 3 years work in a drug tehn it must actually be good and therefore should be made available to those who would so gretly benefit but if it’s not the wonder drug then fairs fair, spend the millions on something that DOES work for the vast majority. I also foolishly often assume that when a text says things like “There’s no question that these drugs are effective” then they are good you know?
I think we should go the whole hog with your way then Chris.
Step one, let’s work out what is wrong with most people who visit doctors and give everyone the same treatment.
Step two, we could save even more since most people are not ill at any one time. We give everyone the same treatment most people need and abolish the whole damn thing.
Seriously, I agree with you in that I can’t see that a “generalised” health service is any use to anyone either. But I don’t agree with you that we should scrap the NHS. What we have is an OECD averagely funded health service producing significantly below average performance, I think that we should address that first, and once it is all being competently managed, increase what we spend. Comparable countries like Germany spend a great deal more than we do, more State money and a lot more private money.
I’d like to say I’m shocked and apauled (if I could spell it…) but sadly I’m not, I’m just greatly irritated that once more they are proving themselves to be penneywise and pound foolish.
Utterly disgraceful – and yet another example of a complete lack of so called joined up thinking. We can save from one budget here, without noticing what effect it will have on our budget impact overall. 🙁
Cutting ‘its’ costs. What an odd headline. Surely it is actually a decision about controlling NHS costs by not doing something clearly beneficial for many on the grounds that more benefit can be done by using the money for something else, funding the bureaucracy ;-). Whether that is true is not something I can judge and ethically I am not sure how one can judge the quality of 100 lives against saving one, for example. But with finite resources there is always going to be rationning and it’s just going to get worse.
My turn to stir up controversy on your blog.
It’s a poorly written emotive article, imo. I am all too aware of the impact of Alzheimers, and I’m familiar with the need to clutch at straws of hope wrt treatment. But in fact Aricept is rarely noticeably effective, and almost always has side-effects which are often severe enough to stop treatment. The evidence that it works well in mild disease is only anecdotal, and in fact, the guidance which says it can be prescribed with a MMSE between 20 and 10 will mean that it can still be prescribed to most of those who will benefit from it.
The full guidance is at nice.org.uk .
That’s us told then – should know better than to believe what we read in the papers 😉
When I was reading around it I found a quote from Alison’s old boss pointing out what Jan said and that the £60m would be better spent on care for sufferers. Rationning has to happen and I think I would prefer NICE to do it than politicians.
When I go to see a doctor, I really would prefer to be given the treatment which is appropriate for me, not that which is suited to “most people”.
And I would prefer that the doctor I see should have the discretion to determine what treatment is most appropriate for me, not politicians and not some committee.
I must admit that while I don’t think the press will ever allow the facts to get in the way of a good story, when I read this I did think that the author, a “consultant in old age psychiatry”, seemed to be a well qualified source.
There is nothing to stop you doing that Tim. It’s called private health care and it costs an awful lot more to provide than a generalised health service.
Fair comment from Jan, it’s a difficult one isn’t it? Youy sort of assume that if a drug company has invested so many £££ and over 3 years work in a drug tehn it must actually be good and therefore should be made available to those who would so gretly benefit but if it’s not the wonder drug then fairs fair, spend the millions on something that DOES work for the vast majority. I also foolishly often assume that when a text says things like “There’s no question that these drugs are effective” then they are good you know?
I think we should go the whole hog with your way then Chris.
Step one, let’s work out what is wrong with most people who visit doctors and give everyone the same treatment.
Step two, we could save even more since most people are not ill at any one time. We give everyone the same treatment most people need and abolish the whole damn thing.
Seriously, I agree with you in that I can’t see that a “generalised” health service is any use to anyone either. But I don’t agree with you that we should scrap the NHS. What we have is an OECD averagely funded health service producing significantly below average performance, I think that we should address that first, and once it is all being competently managed, increase what we spend. Comparable countries like Germany spend a great deal more than we do, more State money and a lot more private money.
Placebos all round then, Tim? 😉 They work, don’t they?
Probably preferrable to platitudes.