Professor Sir Michael Rawlins- head of the government’s medicines’ quango has said patients should sue their health trust if they are not getting the best recommended drugs.The killer quango- National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (NICE) was set up by labour to stop the NHS spending money on it’s drugs bill- so it’s unusual for him to speak out about NHS rationing.

Professor Rawlins, the chairman of NICE said the economic pressure on trusts meant that “completely illegal” decisions were being made to limit the use of expensive drugs.

He told the Financial Times: “I just wish a patient organisation would take a Trust to court for failing to comply.”

Nice has been criticised for ruling against the prescription of expensive new drugs on the grounds that they are not cost-effective.

But Sir Michael told the paper that most of Nice’s recommendations were in favour of prescription and that it was other bodies that blocked the drugs’ use.

Sir Michael criticised the local lists of approved medicines drawn up across the NHS which “second-guess” and sometimes ignore Nice recommendations.

While patient groups for particular diseases – often helped by pharmaceutical companies – have attacked Nice for advising against the use of some expensive new medicines, Sir Michael said they should be directing more criticism instead to the drug companies for charging high prices.

The government’s own innovation review recognised the problem by pledging a Nice “compliance regime” to reduce regional variation – the so-called “postcode lottery” – and to improve adherence to the agency’s guidelines.

It cautioned that local decisions should not act as a barrier to the medicines that Nice had approved.

A US company contracted to provide IT technology for the National Health Service is set to receive a £2 billion extension despite the failed project being abandoned.Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) has reportedly informed Wall Street that it expects its contract to provide electronic patient records across the NHS to be extended.

Taxpayers are now facing an estimated £2 billion bill, despite the company already failing to deliver a fully functional version of its software, The Times reported.

The £11.4 billion National Programme for IT, set up in 2002 by bliar, was at the time spun as the world’s biggest civilian computerisation project.

It aimed to give doctors instant access to patient records wherever they were being treated and CSC had signed a deal to computerise records in most of England.

Digitising the medical records of the country’s 62 million people was the core objective of the National Programme for IT in the NHS, accounting for £7 billion of the total estimated cost.

Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, announced in September that he was abandoning the scheme to create a national patient database because it had “let down” the health service.

He made the decision to “urgently dismantle” the failed project after criticism it was not value for taxpayers’ money.

Yet the company stated in official US papers that it was in talks with the British Government for its contract to be extended until 2017, at a cost of up to £2 billion.

Computer applications installed as part of the scheme have also failed or been scrapped.

However, £250,000 in bonuses has been paid by the DoH to 80 people involved in the scheme as a reward for “an exceptional contribution to delivery”.

CSC, one of the world’s biggest IT providers, had been contracted to provide patient record software, known as the Lorenzo system, to 166 NHS hospitals. But it has delivered on 10 projects. None of those systems is fully functional.

CSC has signed deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds with Royal Mail, Identity and Passport Service and UK Atomic Energy Authority.

The Coalition’s Major Projects Authority, established to review Labour’s financial commitments, found the scheme was not fit to provide services to the NHS.

A cross-party committee of MPs concluded the programme had proved “beyond the capacity of the DoH to deliver”.

Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said it was “shameful” to pour more money into a failed initiative.

Penny pinching NHS managers have introduced new viagra prescription guidelines which could limit thousands of couples to having sex once a fortnight.New policy documents advise GPs in parts of the country that patients in need of Viagra or similar drugs should be limited to two pills per month, down from the normal prescription of four.

Although the policy was described as a “recommendation” by NHS authorities, local medical committees told the GPs’ magazine Pulse in GPs slam secrecy over evidence for Viagra rationing restrictions it was being handed down to family doctors as an “edict”.

Erectile dysfunction medication is already stringently limited on the NHS and can only be prescribed to patients with certain conditions such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and prostate cancer.

According to the NHS some 2.2 million prescriptions for erectile dysfunction drugs were issued last year, with 14.5 million tablets issued at a cost of about £78 million.

NHS guidance acknowledges that there “appears to be no clinical reason to restrict the number of tablets” but it adds that, according to research, the average person has sex four times a month.  The average frequency of sexual intercourse in the 40 to 60 age range is once a week.”

The new policy is aimed at economising on non-essential treatments, recommending that the minimum effective dose be prescribed “two times per month using the drug with the lowest acquisition cost.”

The guidance applies to sildenafil (Viagra), vardenafil (Levitra) and tadalafil (Cialis).

Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse, said: “Ask most doctors and they will say that being able to live a satisfactory sex life is a key part of health and wellbeing, but the NHS has never recognised that in its policy on treatment for erectile dysfunction.

“Limiting patients to drugs like Viagra just twice a month is to treat sex like an unnecessary luxury, and completely fails to recognise the degree of anguish it can cause some men with erectile dysfunction.”

Erectile dysfunction is very common in middle aged and older men, with an estimated 50 per cent of those between 40 and 70 experiencing the condition to some degree.

Viagra and other medications can be bought privately, but the cost of about £40 for eight pills can be prohibitive, and patients must also pay for a private prescription.

The new prescription guidelines were drawn up by South Central Priorities Committees, which covers primary care trusts (PCTs) in Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire, Berkshire East, Berkshire West and Buckinghamshire.

The Government is trying to reassure women fitted with PIP implants to prevent a rush for NHS surgery to remove faulty breast implants.The adverts, to run in a number of national newspapers at the weekend, will emphasise there is “no clear evidence” that the French made implants cause more harm than other brands.

Almost £135,000 is being spent by the Department of Health on the campaign, which will also run in social media sites. Posters will appear in GPs’ surgeries and hospitals as well.

The advert reads: “The latest advice from the NHS and plastic surgery experts is that women with PiP breast implants do not need to have them removed unless they have symptoms such as pain and tenderness.

“There is no link to cancer and there is no clear evidence of an increased risk of harm compared to other brands of breast implants.”

However, it also states, in large-type at the top of the advert: “The NHS will support women with PiP breast implants.”

Clarifying the situation for those who received implants as part of private breast enlargement operations, it states: “”The NHS will remove your implants if your doctor agrees, but the NHS will not replace implants unless it is clinically necessary.”

It advises those worried about whether they have implants made by Poly Implant Prothese (PIP), which contain industrial-grade silicone, to find out if they have them, to speak to their specialist or GP, and “agree what’s best for you”.

Despite the campaign, Fazel Fatah, president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS), said the organisation’s stance remained that all 40,000 women fitted with them in Britain should have them removed.

He said: “We remain steadfast in our recommendation to the public of precautionary removal of these defective devices. Although there is no immediate health risk, the gel within these implants is simply not meant to be inside the human body.”

A survey of its 230 members found 95 per cent agreed that “it should be the clinics and hospitals that should pay for the replacement surgery, rather than burden the taxpayer with these costs”.

Women given the PIP implants are due to protest in London on Saturday at the reluctance of private firms like Harley Medical Group, The Hospital Group and Transform Cosmetic Surgery to fund removal and replacement surgery.

Explaining the rationale for the campaign, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “The refusal of some clinics to help their patients has left some of those women worried and confused.

“That’s why we are running this ad campaign, to give women clear, definitive advice about what course of action they should take. I hope it helps women decide what is best for them. We have made it very clear to private companies what we expect of them – to provide their patients with the aftercare that they need and deserve.”

“I do not think it is fair to the taxpayer or other NHS patients for the NHS to foot the bill.  We will pursue private clinics with all means at our disposal to avoid this.”

Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS medical director and leader of an expert group on PIP implants convened by Mr Lansley, said: “At present there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine removal of these implants.

“But I know women will be worried. That’s why the expert group supports the NHS offer and believes the private industry should do the same.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Breast-implant-scandal-Government-campaign-to-reassure-women

There are a host of challenges looming for the NHS in the next 12 months.After 139 days of public hearings, the Mid Staffordshire Public Inquiry closed on 1 December. There is no date yet for the publication of the final report. But already Robert Francis QC, the head of the inquiry, has said the issue threatens to unleash a “tsunami of anger”.

The inquiry has been looking at what happened at Stafford Hospital from 2005 to 2008 during which hundreds of patients died needlessly and why it went undetected for so long. In particular, the findings promise to have major implications for regulation of the health service.

In recent months, the Care Quality Commission, which now regulates quality in the NHS after taking on responsibility for it from the Healthcare Commission in 2009, has come under criticism from the House of Commons health committee for losing sight of what it should be doing. Ominously for the quango, the prime minister was quick to give his backing to the findings.

What is more, during the inquiry the culture and vision of the regulator came under attack from its own officials, prompting the health secretary to order an investigation himself. It seems unlikely that the CQC will survive unchanged.

Politically, the government’s reform of the NHS in England may be over the worst hurdles, but that does not mean it will be an easy ride from now until the big bang in 2013 when GPs finally get control over the purse strings.

There is growing frustration among doctors who are getting involved in the new clinical commission groups. In many ways, they should be the greatest advocates of the plans as they are supposed to be getting more power than ever before.

But the Clinical Commissioning Coalition, which represents the GPs who are piloting the new arrangements, has started reporting that they are being bullied by senior managers in the health service. They say they are interfering with their structures and decision-making process – and this in turn is threatening the whole project. Expect another 12 months of arguments and controversy.

Although it is not part of the NHS, the social care system is closely linked to the fortunes of the health service. Whether it is arranging discharge from hospital or preventing falls in the home, when social services are not working as they should, the effect is felt in the NHS.

When Tony Blair came to power in 1997 he talked about improving social care. But at the end of Labour’s 13 years in power, ministers were still arguing about the best way forward.

After 13 years of labour’s dithering the system is suffering from chronic under funding.

While the NHS enjoys a budget in excess of £100 billion, adult social care has to get by on about £14 billion.

This is topped up by individual contributions – the system is means-tested – but nonetheless councils across the country are cutting back on what they can offer. And so reform will require extra money – something which is of course in short supply at the moment.

It is also likely to require cross-party consensus, but there is still some bad blood between the health secretary and his Labour opponent Andy Burnham over the death tax row which effectively scuppered the shadow health secretary’s plans to reform social care when he was in power.

The budget is increasing by an average of 0.1%, but as inflation in the health service is rising at a much quicker rate to cover costs associated with the ageing population and rising levels of obesity, savings are having to be made.

The NHS has a target of £20 billion by 2015, the equivalent of about 4% a year. That means there is pressure on jobs – unions say tens of thousands are being lost – and front-line services.

In particular, hospitals are coming under pressure. Advances in medicine and the nature of illnesses in the 21st century – many more people are suffering from chronic conditions like diabetes – means more and more can be done in the community.

It has meant an increasing number of hospitals are piling up debts because they are not getting enough patients through the door.

This in turn means managers and ministers are having to make difficult decisions about closing departments and even whole centres. The process will continue in 2012, particularly in and around London which was recently described as being in a “shocking” state by a committee of MPs.

Under Labour, an 18-week waiting time target was set for non-emergency hospital treatment, such as knee and hip operations. Within months of the coalition being formed, ministers said it was being relaxed to move away from the tick-box culture that they say had developed.

But when the government was knee-deep in criticism over its reforms the prime minister made the specific pledge that waiting times would not be allowed to slip. This has resulted in more attention than ever being given to waiting times.

And signs are emerging that hospitals are beginning to struggle to keep up with the 18-week goal. Overall, the NHS is still meeting the target – they only have to achieve it for 90% of patients to reflect the fact there are valid reasons why some wait longer.

But that masks the fact that there is a rising number of places where it is being breached, leaving the best-performers to bring the national figure up.

It means there could be growing dissatisfaction with the waits patients are facing, although it must be remembered a return to the 1990s when waits of six months and even a year were the norm for many patients is still a long, long way off.

Two thirds of parents who have children fighting cancer are being forced into debt due to the costs of caring for them, according to research.The charity CLIC Sargent found in it’s survey Childhood cancer drives two thirds of parents into debt families were struggling to meet the extra expenses of childcare, travel and accommodation.

Many such parents also take extensive unpaid leave, so the families have to get by on reduced incomes.

The survey of 245 parents found 66 per cent were having to borrow money to make ends meet, while 76 per cent said extra costs were having a major impact on family finances.

More than two in five (42 per cent) were borrowing on a credit card, while 20 per cent had taken out a loan.

More than one in 20 (6 per cent) had turned to high interest, short-term loans to cope with additional costs.

Of those in debt, 41 per cent had been forced to borrow more than £1,000 to fund extra costs while 27 per cent borrowed more than £2,000.

More than half (55 per cent) had taken unpaid leave – many more than three months – while 13 per cent said they felt they had been demoted as a result.

Cancer-related expenses every month amounted to more than £360 on average.

Lorraine Clifton, chief executive of CLIC Sargent, said: “Everyone is suffering in this economic climate but parents of children with cancer are amongst the hardest hit. The extra costs can be significant.

“It’s shocking to hear that some families felt driven to debt in order to get through financially. Unpaid leave from work, travel costs and care for siblings are some of the additional costs that families face once cancer treatment begins.

“CLIC Sargent is concerned that Government reforms will restrict families’ options to financial support through the benefits system.

“Which is why we want to work with the Government and other organisations to ensure young people and children with cancer, and their families, have the financial support they need.”

Home healthacre checks ‘fell significantly’ under the Care Quality Commission (CQC) quango warns NAO.Work on checking standards in English care home fell “significantly” after a new watchdog was introduced, the National Audit Office (NAO) has warned in a new report.

It has accused the Care Quality Commission for failing to follow up a whistle blower’s warnings of alleged abuse of patients at the Winterbourne View care home near Bristol, of failing to “provide value for money”.

The CQC was established by Labour and cam into being in April 2009, bringing together three predecessor organisations – the Healthcare Commission, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Mental Health Act Commission.

But the NAO report said work on inspecting health and social care organisations “fell significantly” after April 2009, “due to the Commission’s decision to prioritise registration over compliance”.

Besides checking institutions, the CQC also has responsibility for registering them.

The report found the CQC “diverted resources in a bid to meet the statutory timetable for registration”.

As a result, it completed just 47 per cent of its target number of compliance reviews of standards of care between October 2010 and April 2011.

Government recruitment restrictions meant 14 per cent of staff positions were vacant last September, with serious shortages of registration assessors and compliance inspectors.

The CQC was established with a budget six per cent lower than the money given to the organisations it replaced, the NAO noted.

Amyas Morse, the Auditor General, said the CQC has had “an uphill struggle to carry out its work effectively and has experienced serious difficulties”.

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, said of the CQC: “This report raises serious concerns about whether it is up to scratch.”

Cynthia Bower, the CQC’s chief executive, said it was now “firmly on the right track”.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Care-home-checks-fell-significantly-under-CQC-warns-NAO

Taxpayers are paying five per cent more per year for hospitals built under Labour’s Private Finance Initiative (PFI) because the debts are linked to inflation.Currently the combined debt for some 800 PFI projects, including 103 PFI hospitals in England, stands at about £300 billion, according to makers of the programme.

When a BBC Panorama programme contacted 85 hospital trusts with PFI deals, it found 80 of them said they were having to make increased payments due to inflation.

When most of the deals were set up, inflation was low and the outlook was for that to continue well into the future.

Most trusts decided not to protect their debts from rising inflation, against the advice of the Treasury.

By contrast, the companies building the hospitals insured themselves against losses due to inflation.

The PFI deals, under which companies build hospitals to be leased back by the NHS, typically run for 30 years.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who now chairs the Public Accounts Committee, admitted to the programme: “We should have been much more transparent about the costs. I think we got the balance wrong.”

Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the committee, said he thought taxpayers were being “ripped off”.

A spokesman for the Treasury said that protecting PFI debts against inflation was “not mandatory … because it is subject to individual authorities undertaking their own project assessments”.

He added said: “The Government has consistently expressed concerns about the misuse and costliness of PFI. That is why, less than two weeks ago, the Government launched a fundamental review of the PFI model, which will see the end of PFI as we know it.”

Critics warn that parts of the Government’s plan to share patient records with private companies give real concern over personal data privacy issues.Mr Burnham said it is “absolutely essential” that patient data is safeguarded, after The Sunday Telegraph revealed David Cameron will use a keynote speech to outline far closer “collaboration” between the health service and life science companies.

The Prime Minister will say that the controversial industry has the potential to be a powerhouse of Britain’s 21st century economy, but that it is stifled by excessive regulation at present.

Speaking to Sky News, Mr Burnham said that while he did not object in principle to close ties between the NHS and private sector life science companies, he was concerned that “one of the patients’ groups that was on the working group looking at this issue has walked away”.

“That gives real cause for concern and rings alarm bells” he said. “The Government simply can’t say: ‘This is all red tape and it all must be brushed away’”.

“Proper regulation, essential safeguards need to be in place when it comes to the use of patient data.”

The move, which will give life science companies more freedom to run clinical trials inside hospitals, is likely to face a backlash from privacy campaigners who have consistently opposed private companies being given access to medical records.

There will be particular opposition from animal rights activists who object vehemently, and sometimes violently, to vivisection, while religious groups, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, could object to firms that use stem cells harvested from embryos being allowed access to NHS data.

One senior executive at a leading drugs company well-known for using animal testing said: “You can look at the NHS as one massive database with 60 million people in it.”

The Prime Minister will stress that greater integration between private companies and the NHS could advance medical science, give patients greater access to cutting-edge treatments and save money, while boosting economic growth.

With Britain teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession, ministers are keen to show that they have a positive vision of the future.

“Britain has the potential to become a powerhouse in the world’s life sciences industry,” said a Downing Street source this weekend.

“We want to see much closer collaboration between the NHS and life science companies — not just greater data-sharing, but more clinical trials in hospitals.

“These changes will not only boost the industry, but also potentially give the NHS early access to new, innovative drugs treatments.”

Welcoming the move, Andrew Witty, the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, said: “Any action the Government takes to improve the environment in this country for life science across these activities is welcome.”

Britain is considered uniquely placed to become a world leader in life sciences because of the strength of scientific research at its top universities and the amount of data and expertise amassed by the NHS since its creation in 1948.

The industry already employs about 160,000 people in 4,500 companies, ranging from large multinationals to small businesses.

These firms employ highly skilled researchers with PhDs down to lower-skilled workers in drugs manufacturing plants.

Whether such companies would be charged for access to NHS records was not clear.

Although personal information should be anonymised, the public sector has an appauling history of handling the personal details of citizens.

Numerous health trusts have been criticised for losing patient records in recent years and HM Revenue & Customs has previously lost the financial records of millions of taxpayers.

Privacy campaigners led a vigorous campaign against the previous Labour government’s plans to place every medical record on a central electronic database.

It is understood that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency would oversee the sharing of NHS data with businesses.

Joyce Robins, from Patient Concern, said many people would be “deeply disturbed” by the notion that their private medical records could be handed to firms seeking new markets.

“Even when they say records will be anonymised, the amount of detail contained in medical records means that companies may be able to find ways to target people with particular conditions,” she said.

“This data is absolutely private; it is not the Government’s to give.”

Health Direct has long warned that patients’ personal data security.

If the Government is genuine in their desire to speed up drug development- they ought to cut red tape.

10 years ago 10% of all new drugs developed in the world were tested in the UK. Since labour created the killer quango National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (NICE) this figure that fallen to only 3%.

Caesareans are to be offered to all pregnant women who ask for them, new guidelines state, amid concerns that some are too scared to give birth naturally on Britain’s overstretched labour wards.A lack of support is leading to “traumatic” natural births, say experts, resulting in women fearing a repeat experience.

Studies show that up to 10 per cent of women in Britain suffer from a serious fear of natural childbirth, called tokophobia.

Now the National Institute for Curbing Expenditure (NICE) is recommending that women should always have the right to a caesarean, even if they have no physical or mental health need.

The guidelines, state: “For women requesting a CS [caesarean section], if after discussion and offer of support (including perinatal mental health support for women with anxiety about childbirth), a vaginal birth is still not an acceptable option, offer a planned CS.”

Malcolm Griffiths, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist at Luton and Dunstable Hospital, who chaired the guidelines development group, said most women were not interested in having a caesarean.

“It is a major operation, about as major as a hysterectomy,” he said.

Nonetheless, 25 per cent of births in Britain are now by caesarean. Between a third and a half of them are pre-planned.

Figures show that rates in Nordic countries are much lower, at about 15 per cent.

Many obstetricians want the UK rate to come down, but believe that is impossible without better midwifery services.

Mr Griffiths said: “I think probably key to the difference is support during labour, with one-to-one midwifery care and support in Nordic countries.”

Better midwifery care was “key to reducing the caesarean rate”, he added.

Nina Khazaezadeh, a consultant midwife at St Thomas’ Hospital in London and a member of the guidelines panel, said some women opted for caesareans because they feared childbirth after a “traumatic” first experience in an understaffed ward – a condition known as “secondary tokophobia”.

She said: “We might see a rise in secondary tokophobia where women have already had a birth that they have found very traumatic, and the perceived lack of support will have had an impact on their decisions for the next pregnancy.”

Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, said: “There is very clear evidence that one-to-one support in labour reduces caesarean rates”.

However, she welcomed the new Nice guidelines, saying it was “absolutely acceptable” that a woman who feared childbirth should be offered a caesarean.

Coincidentally, the RCM publishes a new report today claiming that England faces “massive midwife shortages” and needs another 5,000 of them.

Even though numbers have increased since 2001, they have “failed to keep pace with the rocketing number and increasing complexity of births”, it warns.

The number of births has risen by 22 per cent in a decade, with midwives having to deal with 120,000 more in 2010 than in 2001.

Mothers also tend to be older and heavier than in the past, which both raise the chance of complications.

Belinda Phipps, chief executive of NCT, said: “Most women want a straightforward birth, some need a caesarean. When women are treated with respect, and are offered support and information tailored to their concerns, very few of them will choose a caesarean birth unless there are clear health reasons.

“However, our services fail women badly at the moment, with midwifery numbers well below the level required to guarantee safe and satisfying care.”

She went on: “If caesarean rates go up following the change to the guidelines, it will be evidence that women are not getting the quality of midwifery support they need.”

The guidelines do recommend that a woman requesting a caesarean should be made to talk about her fear of childbirth before an operation is granted.

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/Caesareans-to-be-offered-to-all-amid-fears-over-midwife-shortages