Drugs firm takes cost conscious doctors to court

 

Wednesday 25 April 2012 16:10 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Independent experts have condemned the Swiss pharmaceuticals company Novartis for trying to force the NHS to buy an expensive drug to treat patients suffering from a degenerative eye disease, rather than using a cheaper, unlicensed alternative.

Novartis is taking four NHS areas in the south of England to a judicial review because they have allowed doctors to prescribe the anti-cancer drug Avastin to treat the wet form of age-related macular degeneration.

Novartis wants Southampton, Hampshire, Isle of Wight and Portsmouth to revoke the policy of prescribing Avastin, but is not making any financial claims of the Primary Care Trusts or the NHS.

Novartis says Avastin is unlicensed for the eye disease and wants its own licensed drug Lucentis, which costs £740 an injection compared with £60, to be used.

John Harris, a professor of medical ethics at Manchester University, said companies such as Novartis should not be allowed to block attempts at using more cost-effective treatments to maximise their profits.

"It is legitimate for healthcare providers to appraise and approve off-label treatments which are significantly more cost-effective than those that pharma are prepared to licence," Professor Harris said.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in