The Labour party is urging the Scottish parliament to take action to standardise IVF provision across Scotland, after Labour MSP Jackie Baillie discovered wide disparities in provision between the 11 Scottish NHS boards. Ms Baillie contacted all of the boards after having been approached by a constituent who was upset about the length of IVF waiting lists where they lived.
With a national shortage of organ donors, the dilemma faced by surgeons is whether a transplant with what are called "marginal" organs from donors who could be higher risk, such as the elderly or patients with a history of cancer or drug abuse, is better than leaving a patient on a waiting list where they could die before a suitable donor can be found. Figures disclosed to File on 4 reveal that in 1998 13% of donor organs were "marginal", 10 years later this percentage had doubled. Everyone in the transplant field who has talked to the programme agreed the quality of organs from deceased donors was declining, accepting this meant added risks connected to the hearts, lungs, livers and kidneys used for transplants. As one doctor put it, this is a calculated gamble. Arising out of this comes the issue of informed consent. Who should have the final say whether an organ from a dead donor should be used, the professional or the patient?
A powerful arthritis drug, judged too expensive for patients in England and Wales, has been approved in Scotland. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice) provisionally ruled that Tocilizumab was too costly for NHS patients south of the border. However, the body's Scottish equivalent has recommended patients in Scotland be treated with the drug.
This article tackles the current deficit in the supply of cadaveric organs by addressing the family veto in organ donation. The authors believe that the family veto matters—ethically as well as practically—and that policies that completely disregard the views of the family in this decision are likely to be counterproductive. Instead, this paper proposes to engage directly with the most important reasons why families often object to the removal of the organs of a loved one who has signed up to the donor registry—notably a failure to understand fully and deliberate on the information and a reluctance to deal with this sort of decision at an emotionally distressing time. To accommodate these concerns it is proposed to separate radically the process of information, deliberation and agreement about the harvesting of a potential donor's organs from the event of death and bereavement through a scheme of advance commitment.
This article examines the implications for patient care, and for the future of rationing within the NHS, of the recent decision to permit NHS patients to supplement their care by paying for medicines — mainly expensive new cancer drugs — which are not available within the NHS. The starting point is the recommendations of the Richards' Report and their implementation through new guidance issued by the DoH and NICE. Practical challenges arise from the insistence upon the 'separate' delivery of self-funded medicines, and more flexible cost-effectiveness thresholds for end of life medicines may have repercussions for other patients. While undoubtedly part of the trend towards explicit rationing, top-up fees might also represent a significant step towards regarding the NHS as a core, basic service. Finally, the issue of top-up fees is located within the broader context of current cancer research priorities and persisting health inequalities.
Although the number of patients seeking treatment elsewhere in the European Union is small,3 this could easily change, especially if people are faced with growing waiting lists or other forms of rationing as the new groups seek to control their budgets. British residents have had the right to obtain treatment in another EU country since 1971.4 Initially, the opportunities were limited mainly to people who fell ill when abroad or, less often, when the NHS agreed that there were good reasons for patients being treated abroad (for example, a citizen of another country resident here returning home to give birth
The medicines watchdog, NICE, is to lose its power to turn down new medicines for use on the NHS. It will give advice on which drugs are effective, but will not decide whether patients should be given treatments their doctor recommends, the Department of Health has confirmed. Instead, groups of GPs will decide whether a drug should be funded or not. Ministers hope to make new drugs affordable to the NHS by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies on price. The plans, called value-based pricing, are set to come into effect in 2014. They are subject to consultation.
All new IVF treatment will stop in Surrey as the NHS tackles a deficit this year of £125m. The board of NHS Surrey met in Cobham on Friday to look at how to tackle "serious financial challenges". A spokesman said current courses of IVF would continue and women nearing 40 would still be considered, with IVF policy to be reviewed next November. NHS Surrey is also no longer funding some treatments including acupuncture and some cosmetic procedures. Treatments which would no longer be funded included male baldness, facial blushing, tattoo removal and spinal epidural injections for chronic back pain.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has confirmed there will not be NHS funding in England and Wales for the anti-cancer drug Avastin. It is used to combat advanced bowel cancer and research shows the drug can give an extra six weeks of life. About 6,500 people per year may be eligible for the drug. But the health watchdog argued that at a cost of nearly £21,000 per patient, the drug is just too expensive.
In the recent White Paper, Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS, there is a commitment to providing better value from the resources available to healthcare. This requires the NHS to address variations in activity and spend. Such variations indicate the need to focus on appropriateness of care, and to investigate the possibilities that there is overuse of some interventions and that some lower value activities are undertaken. In the Atlas, Right Care presents a series 34 of maps of variation selected from topics which National Clinical Directors and others have identified as being of importance to their clinical specialty. We have worked with a wide range of teams in the Department of Health, Observatory network and primary care organisations to create this Atlas.The Atlas also contains a guide to the tools and data available for analysing health investment.
Hospitals in north Merseyside are planning to use the anti-trespass powers used to ban “hoodies” from shopping centres to shift patients who are blocking beds. NHS Sefton board papers say that from this month patients deemed fit for discharge but who refuse “transitional” care home placements will be given 48 hours’ written notice to make their own arrangements. If a patient still refuses to leave, the hospital could seek a court order for possession of their bed. A well-placed legal source told HSJ the primary care trust’s approach would rely on trespass law, which allows owners to regulate the terms on which visitors occupy their premises.
A cancer patient who was supposed to receive regular check ups says he was devastated when he was finally seen and told the disease had spread. Retired teacher Henry Clark from Narberth, Pembrokeshire, needed three-monthly check ups at West Wales General Hospital, Carmarthen. But "serious failures" meant he was not seen for more than a year. Hywel Dda Health Board has been criticised for what happened and has apologised.
A 22-stone ex-policeman trying to persuade a health authority to fund obesity surgery started the latest round of his legal fight today. Grandfather Tom Condliff, of Talke, Staffordshire, who is 62 and 6ft 2in, says he needs stomach surgery to save his life. But the North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) refuses to fund a laparoscopic gastric bypass operation. In April, the High Court refused to quash the PCT's decision not to provide the surgery. Today, Mr Condliff's lawyers sought to overturn the High Court ruling in the Court of Appeal.
A 22-stone ex-policeman has lost his Court of Appeal fight to force a health authority to fund obesity surgery. Tom Condliff, 62, said he needed a gastric bypass operation to save his life after becoming obese due to the drugs he takes for long-term diabetes. The Stoke-on-Trent man challenged a decision by North Staffordshire PCT to refuse to fund the procedure. Court judges expressed "considerable sympathy" but ruled the funding policy did not breach human rights laws. Lord Justice Toulson, one of three judges sitting on Wednesday, said: "Anyone in his situation would feel desperate." Mr Condliff, of Talke, who has a body mass index (BMI) of 43 - not high enough under his PCT's rules to qualify for surgery - lost a High Court battle over the decision in April. But his lawyers had argued the PCT had applied a funding policy which was legally flawed and breached his human rights.
US drug regulators have rescinded approval of a breast cancer drug, saying it is not effective enough to justify the risks of taking it. The drug, Avastin, was approved for US use in 2008, but UK officials have also rejected claims that it prolongs life.
We talk, as a society, of our need to get health care costs under control. Conservatives, in particular, insist that Medicare must be reformed. Here is an enormously expensive drug that largely doesn’t work, has serious side effects and can no longer be marketed as a breast cancer therapy. Yet insurers, including Medicare, will continue to cover it. If we’re not willing to say no to a drug like Avastin, then what drug will we say no to?
Tom Condliff, who weighs 22st, was not considered fat enough to have a gastric bypass operation by his local Primary Care Trust and both the High Court and the Appeal Court ruled that its decision was lawful. But less than a month after his latest setback, the 62 year-old from Staffordshire has been told that his latest “individual funding request” has been successful on the grounds of his exceptional circumstances and he will now be treated. He told the BBC: “I am very, very pleased about the PCT's decision but at the same time I am rather concerned that I haven't changed since the last time the request for IFR in September last year, was put in. “It was turned down then. So I don't know why it has been granted this time. “I am looking forward to being able to get out of the house and to enjoying myself and having a decent quality of life.”