What price on quality of life as England drops cancer drugs?

By European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) Executive Director Denis Horgan

In the news this week is the decision by medical authorities in England to deny new cancer patients access to a number of potentially life-saving, and life-extending, drugs.

The shock move comes after an NHS review into the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) and, not surprisingly, the announcement has resulted in criticism from the heads of no less than 15 cancer charities.

The European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) can fully understand the charities’ position, believing that such measures go against the ethos of equality for all on which the European Union is built.

The facts are that, from April in England, changes to the Cancer Drugs Fund will mean that 25 expensive cancer drugs – including three that treat breast cancer – will no longer be available on the NHS.

From that time, only those people who are already being treated with the relevant drugs will be able to receive them, leaving newly diagnosed patients without these specialized medicines.

The CDF was founded in 2011 and spends around £280 million every year on cancer drugs that the NHS could not otherwise afford to supply in England. The decision to remove the drugs has been made because it is felt that they do not offer enough value for money, despite the consequent loss of quality of life for patients unable to gain access to them.

EAPM has been in touch with 52-year-old Thomas, from Devon in the south of England. Thomas has recently been diagnosed with a cancer that would previously have qualified him for one of the now-removed drugs. He said: “I do not know how long I have left. Cancer is a terrible disease and there are so many kinds. However, the quality and length of life left to me will undeniably be less due to this decision.” Thomas is far from alone, there will be thousands like him across England.

While it is the case that some new funds have been added to the CDF budget – which will rise to about £340m annually - these 25 vital drugs will no longer be available to patients, such as Thomas, who rely on the country’s health service when they are sick.

NHS England said it has made savings of £80m by this decision, stating that without the move, the fund's spending would have reached some £420m. A drop in the ocean, arguably, when it comes to health-related spending these days.

Of course, EAPM strongly believes that national health services across the EU’s 28 member states must spend their money wisely and - a key point – much more efficiently. The choices are often difficult, especially in these tough economic times.

But the fact remains that radical actions and sweeping moves such as denying access to 25 drugs on the basis of cost can be counter-productive financially, as well as morally suspect.

No one would venture to put an exact value on a human life but giving the right treatment to the right patient at the right time is, while sounding expensive, actually generally more cost-efficient in that patients spend less time in hospital beds with the attendant escalating costs and are more likely to stay in the workplace longer, thus contributing to society’s wealth.

Europe’s population of 500 million is ageing, and all of us are likely to need treatment for our various ills at some stage. If such treatments can be delivered swiftly, efficiently and effectively, the future will show that a healthy Europe is a wealthy Europe, quite aside from the moral obligations that the EU has towards its citizens, whoever and wherever they may be and with whatever disease they may be suffering from.

A more efficient method of providing value for money in health care is required across the EU. Sweeping cuts that cause unnecessary patient suffering in order to save cash are unfair to citizens and simply not the answer.

Share this article: