Hard truths about medical entrepreneurs
A lot of doctors are gullible. In the current climate of hatred whipped up by the government against doctors in general and GPs in particular you will probably fall of your chair laughing if I said that few of us go into the profession to make money. There were probably some vague feelings about job security and a background assumption that, as a doctor, one was unlikely to starve, but that was about it. I can’t remember any conversations about amassing wealth. You do not think like that when you are a teenager and, even in your early twenties at medical school, few are saying “I want to be an orthopaedic surgeon because it pays so well.” Most of us ended up where we ended up for other reasons.
Of course, there are some medical entrepreneurs, like Dr Pete Smith, who we met recently. Then there is a pressure group called Doctors for Reform. I am vaguely aware of them, and once spent a couple of minutes on their website. Seem well-meaning. Pretty harmless, I expect. They have recently come out with the following:
The NHS doctors’ group Doctors for Reform has launched a new campaign to help patients who have been prevented from paying extra towards their NHS care in order to receive new drugs and treatments.I can go along with that. Indeed, I can support it. Then I heard from Unity at the Ministry of Truth. She takes a long hard look at the background to Doctors for Reform. It makes uncomfortable reading.
Legal opinion indicates that the Department of Health’s bar on such “top-up” payments is unlawful. Doctors for Reform’s campaign will build up a “fighting fund” of £35,000 to enable a patient to undertake a judicial review of the current legislation. This would establish a precedent that will potentially benefit thousands of patients around the country.
We strongly sympathise with patients who have been caught up in the current confusion over “top-up” payments. The current NHS funding system is not transparent, and patients are unsure of their rights and entitlements. Some patients have been able to “top-up” their NHS care and some have not. Patients in identical situations have access to different types of drugs depending on the area of the country in which they live. ( Doctor for Reform)
Men’s wretchedness in soothe I so deplore,Not even I would plague the sorry creatures more.Goethe
Labels: Doctors for Reform, Ministry of Truth
10 Comments:
I left a comment on the Ministry of Truth blog.
She has not made a case against co-payment. I can see no reason for the NHS to refuse to continue treatment unless the new drug requires changes to the existing treatment that will cost the NHS significantly more for little or no benefit. However, if co-payment becomes acceptable there will be creep. More and more items will require expensive additional payments.
Unity makes a case against these set of drugs.
She makes a case against Doctors for Reform. Even if it is mainly that they include conservatives and doctors that do private practice.
She makes no case against the principal that if you want top up your treatment with something extra that wouldn't be cost effective to be offered as standard from the NHS you should not have the standard NHS treatment taken away from you.
Unity is a girl?? Hawt!
See my comment over there: the article is about NICE not about co-payment (not that Dr C indicated this was the case).
There seems to be some confusion around what's a MAb and what's an antigen too.
Unity's comments about vested interests need to be treated with caution. The R&D companies run by the medical academics have been set up to take advantage of favourable tax treatment, not to line the pockets of the directors. You will find that university academics have set up analogous companies across all sciences, not just medicine. It's just the way that universities have to operate these days.
To quote Wat Tyler in his response to a previous post:
"Most of us who want to see a serious change favour a European social insurance model, probably along the lines of the Swiss or Dutch systems.
Choice and competition are key, but insurance is compulsory for all, with the state picking up the premium for the poor.
And the insurance companies themselves are not permitted to select their customers - they must take all comers at a single price (which they set) for a mandated package of services.
Profit? I wouldn't rule out profit making, because it's such a powerful driver of efficiency and innovation.
The aim is to improve services to customers, not to pursue a "pseudo-socialist" agenda of equal misery for all."
Let's hope a future Conservative government moves towards this goal. The NHS has long outlived its usefulness; it was compromised at birth and its weaknesses are being exposed as never before. Piecemeal privatisions will only worsen the situation.
Co-Payment appears to eb another thing which is a pst code lottery. My local NHS Trust made no objection to my paying them for an MRI to avoid waiting several months for the scan which wa snecessary before my extremely painful foot could be treated. Likewise they do not decline to foot the bill to treat my arthritis when occasionally driven demented by pain I pay a rheumatologist to speed up my access to treatment which may ease the pain and restore my quality of life. Maybe its different in London but I will be furious if some politicain or bureaucrat to tries to remove my right to pay for faster pain relief when the wheels of the NHS are turning agonisingly slowly. To be honest they will be shooting themselves in the foot if they do. For my sins I work for the current Government and if when I flare I do not get fast and appropriate care I go off sick and they have to pay me to sit at home. False economy methinks.
What a load of nonsense; money remains the prime motivating force for many who leave medical school: hence the intense competition for surgery, cardiology and gastroenterology placements: specialities that can bring in the most private practice.
Not to say this is intrinsically wrong, but lets be honest.
My last hospital job in Rep. of Ireland was oncology. We gave Avastin and Cetuximab routinely, as in Eire ALL drugs that the doctor deems necessary for treatment are available to the patient in public healthcare at the cost of the taxpayer. Anyone who warranted it got Herceptin as long as the oncologist thought it necessary. We practice evidence based medicine in Ireland. Clearly the evidence is there that these agents prolong life and/or improve quality of life for remaining time. But yes, they are pricey. My point is that there is sufficient evidence to make them licensed for use and they are known to increase remaining time. The argument that they are not really known to be effective enough to justify costs is bollocks.
Clearly your government hates forking out cash, and especially wasting it on people who are just going to die and quit paying taxes anyway. But these drugs should be funded on the NHS. People shouldn't even be having to cough up if they want top-up treatment. It is horrendous and inexcusable that dying people are being denied their right to NHS treatment if they do this, but they should be getting those drugs anyway.
Feck, we have problems in Ireland. We still don't have the EWTD and our working lives are HELL.
But all in all, our system is a lot more humane than yours.
Bloody hell.
Good article.Especially the above.We end up with a justice system again, where many innocent people are locked up again on the basis of an anonymous witness who may have a grudge financial interest etc in cooperating with the Police or whoever wants the defendant put away.
flashlights rc helicopter video games Tactical Flashlights HID Flashlight Wolf-Eyes Flashlights rc helicopter helicopter r c airplane remote control video game PS2
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home