Oliver Wright: No simple remedy for the big healthcare dilemma

How much are treatments worth to us as a society and are we happy to pay for them?

Oliver Wright
Monday 27 August 2012 22:54 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.

It is a dilemma which is as old as the NHS: How, with finite financial resources, do you decide which drugs to pay for and which to restrict.

How much is two months of extra life worth when the cost is many thousands of pounds and there is no hope of recovery?

How do you decide whether a cancer drug which is only effective in 5 per cent of patients should be given to everyone just in case?

It was to address dilemmas such as these that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) was set up in 1999: to determine which drugs the NHS should pay for and which should be restricted.

But things have not proved that simple.

The NHS is not a single organisation with a single budget and, despite rules designed to prevent it, postcode-prescribing has flourished around the country.

Under huge budgetary pressures (even in the good times) local health authorities have often knowingly ignored guidance – only reversing the secret rationing when under the glare of publicity.

So will the innovation scorecard solve the problem?

It should certainly help. It will make it much easier for patient groups, drugs companies and the media to identify and highlight those areas of the country and individual hospitals which are routinely flouting Nice guidance.

Perhaps more importantly, it will also put pressure on hospital managers not to cut corners in the first place for fear of being exposed. But what the scorecard does not do is solve the fundamental dilemma: how much are such treatments worth to us as a society and are we prepared to pay for them?

As individuals, we obviously want the best possible treatments available – whatever the cost.

As taxpayers, paying for others, we might be more discerning.

As we all live longer, diseases become controllable and the drugs bill rises ever further, it is a debate which is certain to become more pressing.

However, an open discussion is certainly better than secret back-door rationing.

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