Money Or Your Life

From The Guardian:

The head of the government's drugs rationing body has claimed that a number of NHS trusts are "breaking the law" by denying patients access to approved treatments and drugs to save money.

Sir Michael Rawlins, the chair of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), said there were many examples of primary care and NHS hospital trusts using "delaying tactics in order to circumvent the legal obligations they have to provide treatment and drugs recommended by Nice within three months". Rawlins urged doctors to "show leadership" by naming primary care and hospital trusts they believe are "breaking the law" by denying patients treatments to which they are entitled. Set up by the government in 1999 as an independent organisation, Nice decides which drugs and treatments are available on the NHS in England and Wales. Rawlins claimed there were "numerous" trusts stalling to allow them to spend money on other things.


The NHS Confederation, the umbrella body representing all organisations that commission and provide NHS services, said the NHS was striving to maintain high quality care in the face of an "unprecedented financial challenge". David Stout, NHS Confederation deputy chief executive of the NHS Confederation, said NHS commissioners and providers need to resolve such issues quickly to make sure patients get access to the care they need.

"However, we must remember the reality is that every NHS organisation has a finite amount of money available. Every new treatment covered and funded under a NICE technology appraisal means fewer resources for other treatments.
"NHS organisations are faced with the difficult challenge of achieving the best outcomes and highest quality care for patients while balancing their budgets."

---------------------

"...finite amount of money available....."  "....balancing their budgets." Statements like this speak for themselves when discussing the NHS and the whole State's attitude towards healthcare. IN other words, spend the bare minimum to keep the workers fit enough to provide profits. Wouldn't it be better putting people first and providing whatever care they needed, as they needed it? Remove the cost issue and this is possible and indeed probable, so the problem once again lies in the economics and not the social side of things.
SussexSocialist