From The Grauniad:
The Royal Surrey County hospital bought NHS drugs cheap to sell at a profit in Europe, in a move defended as 'entrepreneurial', but deemed 'unethical' by health experts...
Last week, health minister Mike O'Brien, attacked "unscrupulous" speculators who are putting patients' health at risk by selling drugs intended for UK patients for higher prices abroad. O'Brien, who has called an emergency summit to deal with the growing problem, had in mind wholesalers and pharmacists, not hospitals when he drew attention to the sales...
Biddle denied that the trust sold drugs that were in danger of short supply to the NHS. But the foundation refused to give a list of the drugs which were traded. The trust said the list was "commercially sensitive"...
Experts said the issue was one of "ethics"."The foundation trust is taking advantage of the bulk purchasing power of the NHS to get cheap drugs and then selling them on for a profit," said James Gubb, director of the health unit at the thinktank Civitas. "The trust may say they are making money to invest for patients, but it's dubious ethically"...
Well, I'm in several minds, actually...
1) Sod ethics, this is about quality of care and cost to the taxpayer. Has anybody shown that patients were denied particular drugs purely because of this?
2) If the hospital makes a profit and spends that on patient care, then hurray! If they spend it on ever higher salaries for bureaucrats, then that's a different matter.
3) UK drugs companies benefit enormously from state-granted patent protection, have monopoly powers and are subsidised via R&D tax credits and other similar monopoly powers. No matter how much they whine about 'breach of trust' by the NHS, that's market forces for you.
4) Being forced to sell cheaply to the NHS so that the NHS can then export the stuff is just like a tax on drugs companies (like making property developers sell off thirty per cent of their output at cost to Housing Associations for 'affordable housing') - but the drugs companies are perfectly entitled to drop the prices that they charge their European customers, thus cutting out the middleman.
5) If the NHS can act as a monopsonist and get prices to UK hospitals down, that's a good thing, isn't it?
6) If The Grauniad is against it, that tilts the balance in favour of it.
Like I said, 'hmmm'.
Triple layer tinfoil
4 hours ago
13 comments:
One wonders whether those attacking the generics drug purchase and sale act on behalf of drug companies. They can't like the generics industry much!
I can't say I like the idea of the NHS being entreprneurial, though. Such policies might start out well, but are bound to be subverted at some point and so, need to be watched.
Wouldn't it be better if the NHS stopped running hospitals altogether, and just provided the means by which patients could be treated 'free' at the point of use by any hospital best able to effect a recovery?
At least the Royal Surrey County Hospital didn't 'gove' them away!
Plus the medical profession supposedly has 'ethics', unlike the politcal profession
"Quite simply, if product is diverted in this way it is likely to have an immediate and dramatic impact on the availability of product to treat UK patients."
What is this damn fool talking about?
Other than when there is a sudden outbreak of a disease, there is no shortage of drugs. This isn't gold, land or Rembrants. Selling on some drugs doesn't have any impact as long as you also buy enough of your own. The raw materials of drugs are plentiful and the majority of the cost is patents.
I tend to think that hospitals should concentrate on the "core" business of "health care" rather than trading/speculating on drug prices.
I can see that it could all end in tears.
"Last week, health minister Mike O'Brien, attacked "unscrupulous" speculators who are putting patients' health at risk..."
The Grauniad states that they refused to list which medicines were traded, but in the 'Metro' this morning it stated 'well known drugs include weight pill Xenical, eresctile disfunction drug Cialis, contraceptive Cerazette...'.
None of those conditions strike me as life threatening, or unable to be treated with other drugs or methods....
F, of course. Vouchers is the way forward.
WFW, it was the management doing it rather than doctors, I think.
JT, another good point. These companies will have found that European hospitals were ordering less and NHS hospitals were ordering more, I doubt whether overall demand can have changed much (notwithstanding your point that these companies can increase production in the medium term).
R, we'll see, won't we?
JM, true, see also my reply to JT.
This is very wrong.
State-enforced (de facto) monopoly uses bargaining power to force down prices from suppliers then on-sells, undercutting said suppliers normal prices, so denying them sales.
The quicker we move to an insurance-, probably voucher-based pluralistic healthcare industry, the better.
RT, but what was to stop the drugs companies reducing the prices they charge the Europeans - my point 4? In any event, aren't patents a form of government-enforced monopoly?
@Roger
'undercutting said suppliers normal prices, so denying them sales'
Unless, of course, said suppliers normal price to the NHS reflected a monopsonist mark-up in which case the (NHS) monopoly buyer called their
bluff, gave them an orgasmic order and they just could not resist, only to realise later they had been well and truly (ahem! I believe it
refers to procreation).
STB.
If it is ok to sell on something you got for near nothing then what about a market in babies?
Anon, that's called "adoption" or "surrogacy", which is incredibly personal to those concerned and not something with which the government should be concerning itself.
I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Substitute "Medicine Trading Company PLC" for "Royal Surrey County Hospital" and you have an example of business at its best. Buy at one price, sell at a higher price, just like every successful shop in the world.
If they could secure a deal for beds, catheters or plastic plates that allowed them to sell-on surplus supplies at a profit no one would say anything other than "jolly good management". Medicines are just another commodity.
Of course different considerations apply where there is a shortage of a particular drug, but there is no hint of that in this instance.
It's a lot of fuss over nothing.
Yep - understrength drugs for us, the real McCoy for Europe - all for a profit.
Post a Comment