NHS win HIV battle

[blissgirl]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36946000http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36946000   found this thought I'd share it here

[blissgirl]

And trust chief exects get their bonusus

[Cleoriff]

This topic is currently being discussed on The Wright Stuff. A programme that will always give both sides of the story.....Fascinating stuff. If this drug was given to currently infected HIV patients it would cost the NHS

£20,000,000. Also concerns that it would encourage people to have unprotected sex. On the other hand if we don't give the drug it will cost the NHS a lot more to treat those who develop full blown Aids.

What is NOT in doubt is this...if the NHS have to fund this drug...then other patients, including those suffering with cancer (which is not classed as a preventable disease) will lose out. Drug funding is not a bottomless pit (or pot)

[Beenherebefore]

---

@jonsie wrote:

But much of those profits go into the pockets of the board and shareholders.

---

Which encourages investment in the company, which allows corporate development etc etc

[MI5]

---

@Cleoriff wrote:

If this drug was given to currently infected HIV patients it would cost the NHS

£20,000,000.

---

Pointless waste of money as it is designed to be preventative and not a cure?

[Cleoriff]

---

@Beenherebefore wrote:

---

@jonsie wrote:

But much of those profits go into the pockets of the board and shareholders.

---

Which encourages investment in the company, which allows corporate development etc etc

---

We are debating from completely different perspectives here @Beenherebefore. I will always respect your opinion from a general corporate management viewpoint. Having worked in and for the NHS for near on 50 years....at all levels of management , then I disagree with you. We aren't talking about chess pieces here. We are talking about funding of patient care. To get the funding required to save lives.....there is an urgency attached. It isn't some 10 year long term business plan to allow a business to grow. It's providing funding to allow patients to live. Yes the NHS is in a mess...and can be said to bleed money....so needs constant review...but morally, we should never put patients lives at risk. 

[Cleoriff]

---

@MI5 wrote:

---

@Cleoriff wrote:

If this drug was given to currently infected HIV patients it would cost the NHS

£20,000,000.

---

Pointless waste of money as it is designed to be preventative and not a cure?

---

No it's not a cure. It prevents the HIV virus from 'growing' and developing into AIDS. I am fully aware that HIV isn't just a disease of gay men.....but the majority of people with HIV are in this category. There is a worry that if people have access to the drug Prep they will stop using protection....It's an absolute nightmare moral dilemma..

[gmarkj]

Just to throw a new question into the mix - why doesn't the NHS develop their own drugs?
Admittedly there would be a huge R&D cost to begin, but once they develop a few items then they would begin to cover cost for the R&D and possibly the rest of the NHS?
Or am I making up rubbish?

[MI5]

---

@Cleoriff wrote:

---

@MI5 wrote:

---

@Cleoriff wrote:

If this drug was given to currently infected HIV patients it would cost the NHS

£20,000,000.

---

Pointless waste of money as it is designed to be preventative and not a cure?

---

No it's not a cure. It prevents the HIV virus from 'growing' and developing into AIDS. I am fully aware that HIV isn't just a disease of gay men.....but the majority of people with HIV are in this category. There is a worry that if people have access to the drug Prep they will stop using protection....It's an absolute nightmare moral dilemma..

---

So why does the programme quote a nonsensical cost?

The cost of giving it to high risk groups could well be much  less.

[Cleoriff]

---

@gmarkj wrote:
Just to throw a new question into the mix - why doesn't the NHS develop their own drugs?
Admittedly there would be a huge R&D cost to begin, but once they develop a few items then they would begin to cover cost for the R&D and possibly the rest of the NHS?
Or am I making up rubbish?

---

Usually the development of new medical technologies and research etc etc is done in conjunction with international co-operation.....However the item I linked to from the Guardian shows the difficulty ANYONE has taking on the pharmaceutical giants. They have the experts and the funding. The NHS is only available in the UK.....We couldn't do it. If honest we wouldn't want to. It would be akin to having a GP suddenly undertaking neurosurgical brain surgery

[Cleoriff]

---

@MI5 wrote:

---

@Cleoriff wrote:

---

@MI5 wrote:

---

@Cleoriff wrote:

If this drug was given to currently infected HIV patients it would cost the NHS

£20,000,000.

---

Pointless waste of money as it is designed to be preventative and not a cure?

---

No it's not a cure. It prevents the HIV virus from 'growing' and developing into AIDS. I am fully aware that HIV isn't just a disease of gay men.....but the majority of people with HIV are in this category. There is a worry that if people have access to the drug Prep they will stop using protection....It's an absolute nightmare moral dilemma..

---

So why does the programme quote a nonsensical cost?

The cost of giving it to high risk groups could well be much  less.

---

I will just make one comment in relation to the above. After so much media hype I expect to see the cost of this drug rise. They have us over a barrel....No one else will be allowed to replicate it legally..... A similar situation arose with a new chemotherapy drug.......the price of the drug escalated ....Dreadful situation....Of course those who could afford private health care had no worries...nor those who lived in the region of Teaching hospital Trusts. This is my stance against the cost of these drugs. They become available to a select few (usually)...