"cheap pills"

[fuchsia-pink]

Interesting thing in The Times today about a pancreatic cancer drug ... The Chief Exec of Pancreatic Cancer UK, Diana Jupp is quoted as saying "Nobody should have to watch someone they love waste away [this particular medicine replaces enzymes the patient cannot make themself and effectively stops them starving] ... when proven, inexpensive medicine is available ..."

The cost of this "cheap" but effective medicine? A mere £7 a day.

So if £7 a tablet is "cheap" for some people, ie with pancreatic cancer, why is lio at £1 a tablet via a private prescription (I know the NHS with its enormous purchasing power pays more but that's a different issue) so often rejected by the NHS for "poor converters" because it's too expensive?

Genuine question

[diogenes Remembering]

Part of it is the poor survival rate for pancreatic cancer - only 5-10% last 5 years after diagnosis and treatment, against 90% with thyroid cancer. So pancreatic cancer is anything but a long-lived disease, where thyroid cancer is very well curable. The £7 per tablet therefore for pancreatic treatment in an individual is short-lived on the average, whereas the £1 per tablet for T3 may cover 50 years of treatment in one person. Not to defend T3's high price, but trying to understand NHS thinking.

[fuchsia-pink in reply to diogenes]

Thank you, Diogenes - that's a very interesting argument

[knitwitty in reply to diogenes]

But if the NHS bought the liothyronine from the same supplier I get it , it would be around 11p per tablet, 25mcg Tiromel -liothyronine.I don't understand why two suppliers have been allowed to hike the price of lothyronine in recent years, I also don't understand why the CMA haven't looked into it more closely.

[diogenes Remembering in reply to knitwitty]

Sometimes I feel like Dominic Cummings in my attitude to the procurement and regulatory authorities in medicine. Enough said! You will gather I am not impressed with their leaden-footed behaviour in conducting their work. And the chop logic that they try to use in saying "now there are competitors" when the UK competitors still manage to happily overcharge by not properly competing. Simply there is no excuse, when adequate well-controlled T3 tablets can be obtained elsewhere for a fraction of the UK price.

[knitwitty in reply to diogenes]

Absolutely agree 100% , it's a scandal , I can't for the life of me fathom out why more medical personnel are not complaining from the rooftops. I don't necessarily mean doctors either , you would think NHS procurement departments would have something to say about it, but I get the impression that they just can't be bothered.Thank you Diogenes for flagging up so many interesting articles recently , much appreciated, though some do go over my head somewhat !

[Alanna012 in reply to diogenes]

Very interesting Diogenes, I suspect you're right in part....but is the NHS thinking truly sound I wonder, and are they really saving money when judging the long term expense of inadequate treatment?

We know that thyroid disease affects every cell in the body with the result that many people end up being treated for each new symptom as if it were not connected to the whole. Going just by my anecdotal experience, this must cause a huge waste in expenses. A brief synopsis of my own health experience within the NHS during 20+ years inferior diagnosis and treatment:

3 years worth of immunotherapy

2 Endoscopies

1 Colonoscopy

1 out patient appointment for a sty caused by swollen eyelids

3 gynaecology scans

1 Total body magnetic resonance scan

6 + Rheumatology consults

3 Ear nose and throat consults

1 specialist orthodontic consult

15 immunotherapy consults

Upteenth doctor appointments...far too many.

Treatments and meds for: Dermatitis, Gastric reflux, Candida overgrowth/thrush, dry mouth, depression, anxiety, IBS, Helicobacter Pylori, Blepharitis, memory fog, chronic fatigue, chronic pain....

I could go on. I haven't even accepted half the things pushed at me like physiotherapy, statins, etc.

The list of medications used and disused is impressive.

Then there's what happens to those who become extremely ill: Being written off with a chronic fatigue or fibromyalgia diagnosis and ending up having to reduce working hours or leave work altogether relying on sickness benefits etc.

Then there's days lost to work from an economic perspective.

So if that's their justification, it's a false economy surely in the long run?

I have friends with other chronic autoimmune diseases and they end up getting long term drug treatment and clinic reviews despite not being affected systemically by their disease at all.

There's a huge dichotomy there.

I personally think it's ideological at least in part.