Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu
I am delighted by this news. Its about time the Government stopped preventing medicines going to people that needed, just because of costs.
I have read the shocking news where some patients, with various illnesses, cannot get the drug due to cost, which will give them extra time. Is a total disgrace.
These drug companies rip the Government off, by there over top prices.
People may say, where does the NHS get that money from. Well lets put it this way. The BLLIONS it spends on Trident. When they might not even be used. They should scrap it.
Then you have millions of pounds in Overseas AID.
I was told by my doctor recently, that he can now give me a certain drug AS THE SURGERY can now afford to supply it. I was shocked by that.
My surgery is in a group of companies and buys its drugs from different companies each month. Absolutely ridiculous
The NHS, shuld be able to supply ANY DRRUG to cure a certain illness, without any problem
|
The problem is, Arthur, cost. Say you are setting budgets. You have £10m to spend (the figures in the NHS are considerably higher, but £10m is a good example). You can spend it on one of two treatments. A state of the art, custom designed drug for a specific condition that costs £400 a dose. That £10m would give about 2,000 people a full year's medication.
Or, do you spend it on an antibiotic that costs £20 per dose, can treat hundreds of conditions and can treat about 40,000 for the same cost?
Regarding Trident, I'm not really sure it's a good idea to scrap that. Especially as it's looking increasing likely that the US is about to vote in a narcissistic man who apparently scores quite highly on the Psychopathy scale as President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beeman
Its per month not per week  and is conciderably cheaper then the cost of a lifetime of treatment, especially as that £400 will drop to £15-£40 per month in 2020 when gled's patent expires (In south Africa where the patent has already expired it costs £12 per month, and can be privatly imported into the UK today for £40 a month). So much so that many (though not all) US health insurance policys provide PrEP for free or co-pay and these are businesses designed to make profit.
Its not just to allow unprotected sex (though im sure for many that is a big part) It protects against splitting condoms, heat of the moment "accidents". drink/drug related "accidents" plus the times when the top claims to have put on a condom and dosnt (or removes it just before - and yes this dose happen). Then theres also the extra protection/reassurance it offers when 1 partner is posative and the other isnt.
There are currently ways to get PrEP on the NHS costing them conciderably more (closer to £1000pm) called clinic hopping where once a month you goto a different sexual health clinic claiming to have had a accident and requesting PEP (Post-exposure ruther then (PrEP) Pre-exposure) throwing away one of the expensive drugs and just using the travada.
For balance im on PrEP which i finance myself importing generic Tenvir-EM (the active ingreadents in travada) for £40pm and i DO use condoms when having sex. |
Personally, and I'm basing this purely on what I've read about this today, I think there would seem to be a solid business case for this drug. What's better, a drug that helps prevent HIV spreading and only costs £400 a month per patient, or treating that patient after infection, with drugs that suppress the HIV and cost £1,000 a month?
As you noted, there are many ways to spread HIV. Should an HIV+ woman be required to pass on HIV to her baby, only for that baby to be taking £1,000 a month worth of drugs for the rest of it's life? What happens if an HIV+ man is having sex (with anyone, male or female) and has the condom on, and it splits? It happens. Should his partner be required to take that same £1,000 a month worth of drugs for the rest of his or her life?
IMO, anything that helps stop the spread of HIV is a good thing, and it would seem this is cheaper for the NHS than the alternative.