About me
Archive
About me

Why the NHS really spends too much on drugs

close

Warning: This post was published more than 10 years ago.

I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might have changed in the 10 years since I wrote this post.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Many thanks for your understanding.

MedicationThe OFT published a much journalised report earlier this week about how the NHS is spending far too much on branded drugs. It’s a frustrating report, because they so nearly got to the point of the issue, but not quite.

Their problem is, effectively, that people are being prescribed branded drugs which are no more effective than non-branded generic versions. This is probably true in a minority of cases. But in many cases, the drug brand does make a difference. It shouldn’t, but it does. Let me provide a couple of examples.

First, the technical one. There is a wealth of evidence that different brands of identical epilepsy drugs have different effects. The reasons are unknown – and, in a world of evidence based medicine where we do what works rather than understanding what works, they are likely to stay that way. So in this case, the spend on the branded drug may well be justified. This is one example that springs to mind, there are probably many others.

Secondly, the prosaic reason. Believe it or not, medicine in a person works better than medicine in a cupboard. Quite often, for their own bizarre reasons, patients won’t take generic medications, but prescribe a branded version, and they’re quite happy. This is, perhaps, more common in kids where there is a choice between the generic flavourless version and the branded flavoured version. If the medication is necessary, then it’s necessary to get it into the patient. If that means prescribing a more expensive version because the patient is awkward, that’s sometimes justifiable too.

But more than this, the overspend on drugs has little to do with branded drugs. They so nearly hit the mark when they said the system should be changed “to deliver better value for money from NHS drug spend and to focus business investment on drugs that have the greatest benefits for patients”. So close, and yet so far.

You see, a great number of the drugs we pump into people have no effect. This isn’t because doctors are cruel, it’s because this is (or so it would seem) what the government wants. If your blood pressure is 139/89, you won’t get pills. If your blood pressure is 140/90, you might well do. You’re not at a hugely increased risk with an increase of 1mmHg, but the Government has decreed that patients above an arbitrary hypertension cut-off must receive treatment to prevent some of them developing future complications. There’s very little judgement in this on the doctor’s part – an untreated patient is a failure, even if the doctor’s best judgement suggests they shouldn’t be on treatment. And this story is repeated over countless conditions with countless protocols. We’re spending money on drugs that even the doctor often feels are unnecessary.

There are a whole host of other areas in which the NHS overspends on drugs, too. Drugs which patient’s use to decorate their kitchen cupboards; drugs which are on repeat prescription but never used; drugs prescribed “because” a person has free prescriptions, which cost very little in a chemist; drugs prescribed (sometimes understandably) to get patients off doctors’ backs.

Branded medications are the tip of a very large iceberg, much of which is controlled by a Government who insist on telling doctors what to prescribe, and to whom, rather than letting their years of clinical judgement be used to their full extent.

Perhaps one day, someone will actually get round to taking the NHS in hand, and righting the wrongs. Perhaps. But for the moment, it seems the powers that be are content to tinker around the edges of huge problems in a massively frustrating way, whilst avoiding the real issues and the difficult decisions. No politician wants to ‘re-educate’ patients on the things they do wrong in their interactions with the NHS, because the punters are the voters. Nobody wants to look weak by admitting past failings and correcting them. Nobody wants to actually fix the problems.

But surely someone can see that the deckchairs have been re-arranged enough, and that HMS NHS needs some urgent upward motion? Or should I find myself a life-raft now?

This 1,069th post was filed under: Health, News and Comment, Politics.






More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 3rd April 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 4th March 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 6th February 2017)

It’s my birthday, and I’ll cry if I want to (published 21st April 2004)

Big Brother: Any more contestants? (published 25th May 2006)

Johnson’s crazy screening plan (published 2nd April 2008)

About Mr Howard (published 12th February 2005)


Comments and responses

No comments or responses to this article have been published yet.

Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.