NHS gives £3 million drug to sick toddler
Discussion
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-64629680
The NHS has used the world’s most expensive drug to treat a little girl with a rare condition. I understand they got a discount so the actual cost has not been disclosed.
Nobody seeing the photos of the beautiful little girl and her sister (who has the same condition but cannot be treated and is now terminally ill) would begrudge the money spent on her treatment.
However when the NHS is screaming about having no money, is there a limit to the amount that can be spent on one patient? There is a moral debate to be had there. Very glad I don’t have to make that decision.
The NHS has used the world’s most expensive drug to treat a little girl with a rare condition. I understand they got a discount so the actual cost has not been disclosed.
Nobody seeing the photos of the beautiful little girl and her sister (who has the same condition but cannot be treated and is now terminally ill) would begrudge the money spent on her treatment.
However when the NHS is screaming about having no money, is there a limit to the amount that can be spent on one patient? There is a moral debate to be had there. Very glad I don’t have to make that decision.
Ayahuasca said:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-64629680
The NHS has used the world’s most expensive drug to treat a little girl with a rare condition. I understand they got a discount so the actual cost has not been disclosed.
Nobody seeing the photos of the beautiful little girl and her sister (who has the same condition but cannot be treated and is now terminally ill) would begrudge the money spent on her treatment.
However when the NHS is screaming about having no money, is there a limit to the amount that can be spent on one patient? There is a moral debate to be had there. Very glad I don’t have to make that decision.
What is the cost of the drug, vs the cost of care and treatment if the drug wasn't administered and the contribution she will make to society in her lifetime? I suggest you read the full article to see the the results from the children who participated in the trial.The NHS has used the world’s most expensive drug to treat a little girl with a rare condition. I understand they got a discount so the actual cost has not been disclosed.
Nobody seeing the photos of the beautiful little girl and her sister (who has the same condition but cannot be treated and is now terminally ill) would begrudge the money spent on her treatment.
However when the NHS is screaming about having no money, is there a limit to the amount that can be spent on one patient? There is a moral debate to be had there. Very glad I don’t have to make that decision.
Funny old world isn't it ? we are so clever and can create complex solutions to cure horrible things on the one hand and so barbaric to each other on the other.
I'm glad the drug exists and I'm glad the NHS has spent the money on it, id rather my tax went on this sort of thing than turning other little kids into skeletons in a far off land.
I'm glad the drug exists and I'm glad the NHS has spent the money on it, id rather my tax went on this sort of thing than turning other little kids into skeletons in a far off land.
Ayahuasca said:
There is a moral debate to be had there.
No there isn't, there is a very, very, very mostly terminal child ("sick toddler" indeed 
) that we can save through the use of a treatment developed specifically for that very condition. Price shouldn't come into it. The article also explains that the treatment price is set when compared to the amount of care required for a child with this condition to survive.Mammasaid said:
What is the cost of the drug, vs the cost of care and treatment if the drug wasn't administered and the contribution she will make to society in her lifetime? I suggest you read the full article to see the the results from the children who participated in the trial.
Exactly.To put it in unpleasantly clinical accounting speak, the costs of the treatment are 'amortised' across the rest of her life. Assuming it is as successful as is hoped, that £3million is giving her an extra 70-, 80-plus years of a healthy life.
On that basis, I'd also take issue with the OP's statement that there's a moral debate to be had. I don't really think there is!
Isn't there a 'maximum' cost of treatment set down in policy somewhere? I'm sure that number was being thrown around during Covid, it may even be referred to by a certain name/phrase.
edit - for clarity I'm not referring to it in connection with the above case, just in relation to when people start to talk about money and the NHS.
edit - for clarity I'm not referring to it in connection with the above case, just in relation to when people start to talk about money and the NHS.
Edited by ScotHill on Wednesday 15th February 09:44
geeks said:
Ayahuasca said:
There is a moral debate to be had there.
No there isn't, there is a very, very, very mostly terminal child ("sick toddler" indeed ) that we can save through the use of a treatment developed specifically for that very condition. Price shouldn't come into it. The article also explains that the treatment price is set when compared to the amount of care required for a child with this condition to survive.We have finite resources. We need to choose how we use them. Allocating them for one purpose means not allocating for another. So you have to weigh one use against another. Lots of hip replacements or an experimental treatment for one individual? Treat a parent or treat a child? Rigidly defined and enforced criteria for these decisions or a bit of a lottery? All choices that inevitably do get made, even if it's done very indirectly in many cases.
Killboy said:
Is this a debate people want to have? If its about costs vs life expectancy I think retirees are in for a rough time.
Given we spent up to £400bn recently on keeping the very weakest retirees alive for a few more weeks/months/years, I'd say that debate won't ever be had.
ScotHill said:
Isn't there a 'maximum' cost of treatment set down in policy somewhere? I'm sure that number was being thrown around during Covid, it may even be referred to by a certain name/phrase.
edit - for clarity I'm not referring to it in connection with the above case, just in relation to when people start to talk about money and the NHS.
I used to know people who did this - they measure it in cost per "quality of life year" (QoLY) where 1 QoLY is fully fit and able, 0.5 QoLY might be in a wheelchair, 0.1 might be in a coma for example. I don't know the exact numbers so the 0.5 might be way off but you see what I mean.edit - for clarity I'm not referring to it in connection with the above case, just in relation to when people start to talk about money and the NHS.
Edited by ScotHill on Wednesday 15th February 09:44
Then the questions around the cost of a drug is "how much will it cost per quality of life year"? A £50,000 drug that extended someone's life by 2 years fully fit would be £25,000 per QoLY, but if it extended their life by 1 year in a coma that would be £500,000 per QoLY.
In the example above if the toddler lives another 80 years with a normal life and the drug costs £3 million that £37,500 per QoLY
Last figure I heard NICE used was about 12 years when it was something like £40,000 per QoLY, obviously this is purely the drug cost.
It's a very cold calculation but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
ScotHill said:
Isn't there a 'maximum' cost of treatment set down in policy somewhere? I'm sure that number was being thrown around during Covid, it may even be referred to by a certain name/phrase.
edit - for clarity I'm not referring to it in connection with the above case, just in relation to when people start to talk about money and the NHS.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) does this for England and Wales.edit - for clarity I'm not referring to it in connection with the above case, just in relation to when people start to talk about money and the NHS.
Edited by ScotHill on Wednesday 15th February 09:44
It used to be they looked at a threshold of £40,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). It's more complex these days with various exceptions and specific drug funds introduced in response to campaigns. Treatments for children typically end up with a cheap £/QALY due to the long life ahead of them even if the course of treatment is an order of magnitude or three higher than a geriatric cancer drug.
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hst18
Electro1980 said:
The NHS will have paid significantly less than that and it’s a green therapy to completely cure the condition. It’s a big headline number but clearly NICE have considered it appropriate at whatever price was paid for the benefit it gives.
Interestingly NICE didn't approve it the first time round in July 2021 so I'm not sure why it's been approved this timehttps://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hst18/documents/e...
(first link putting OTL-200 into Google)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff