The NHS runs on rationing and priorities in general - it has to. It is just not something they freely admit. I understand what you are saying about current research guiding where the resources go - that makes perfect sense in a resource poor environment.
Going off at a tangent...
There are bigger problems in this area e.g. 1) per patient costs of drugs in general, 2) where a drug has proven benefits beyond the range permitted by NICE and they refuse to extend its availability because of "muh costs" and 3) Patent abuse.
The problem is that I do not think they push hard enough on big pharma regarding prices and access to generics etc. Increasing the demand should allow the NHS to demand price breaks but they do not seem to have much luck. Big pharma always claims "muh research costs" but based on research I have done I think that is a little bit misleading. Some interesting stats from some research I have been doing recently (buyer beware):
Pharma companies spend 17% on research (not that much in the scale of things) and costs are exponentially plummeting over the decades which they can tax offset
They can spend up to twice that on marketing - again tax deductible
Over 50% of the revenue for the biggies come from the US and Canada
Average profit margins are 20% to 50%
Average stock return over the last 10 years - 88%
I admit the pipeline for research has an incredibly low success rate (<12%) but the profits they rake in on that are insanely high, even more than Google.
The only reason they do not reduce costs is that they do not want / care / need to and governments may not have the necessary commercial skills and leverage to play hardball at the "corporation as a state" level.
I'm glad John got Enza and it had less side effects. You are right about the luck of the draw though, sadly.
Edited by member 04 Feb 2019 at 21:44
| Reason: Not specified