The ‘bonfire of quangos’ may or may not lead to centralisation or deregulation depending on circumstance.
Dr Stephen Henderson is a bioinformatics researcher at the UCL Cancer Institute
Today on Left Foot Forward we have highlighted the tension between the perhaps laudable ideal of ‘localism’- and the bothersome and difficult task of maintaining national standards – and the ‘bonfire of quangos’, which may lead to centralisation or deregulation depending on circumstance. The coalition view seems to be that the best outcomes will arise naturally when we free local groups, people, doctors, teachers, parents, and patients to follow their own course.
At the abstract level this is an appealing philosophical ideal that this may or may not work in practice, depending on the detail. Let me give a concrete illustration.
I have previously written about the Interim Cancer Drug Fund. From the 1st of October £50 million extra funding has been shared between the Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) to pay for currently unsupported cancer drug treatments. Decisions on funding are to be made by locally appointed panels of physicians, when a patient applies via their oncologist.
Two SHAs (that I am aware of, there may be private guidance I am unaware of) have helpfully produced public guidelines as to the disease and drug combinations that they will fund – East Midlands and London. The lists of diseases and treatments are quite different. The East Midlands SHA have outlined seven drugs that they will fast-track for consideration whilst the London SHA list contains 15 for approval. Only three diseases and drug combinations appear on both lists.
Now the East Midlands SHA guidance clearly states it is:
“… not an exhaustive list and other drugs will be considered on a case by case basis by the clinical panel.”
and the London SHA also makes clear elsewhere that:
“… applications for drugs not on the specified list will be considered by PCTs for exceptional funding on an individual case-by-case basis.”
Yet clearly each SHA is prioritising different treatments. What is this, if not a postcode lottery?
And will it satisfy charities and patient groups? One such charity, the James Whale Fund which helps kidney cancer patients has recently defended the Interim Cancer Fund and stated:
“… we will be one of the first charities to test out the new system in October for kidney cancer patients denied cancer treatment by the PCT’s.”
Yet of the four drugs that they have previously campaigned for (that I am aware of), they will find only Everolimus prioritised by the London SHA and a very similar competing drug Temsirolimus (both mTOR inhibitors) fast-tracked by the East Midlands SHA. So inconsistencies and omissions might yet generate some anguish – or lengthy appeals (target decision time is <31 days).
Nevertheless it is early days for the Interim Drug Fund and perhaps the irregularities will be sorted out come the launch of the £200m Cancer Drug Fund. Certainly most oncologists and patient groups are happy for the extra money – and so we might look to the criteria adopted by the London SHA to select their list:
“Survival benefit; Quality of life; Alternative available treatments; Cost-effectiveness; Strength of evidence.”
Hmm… sounds familiar. We could set up a body to set priorities for the whole of the country based on these clear and fair guidelines – and of course it would have to be independent of political meddling. That would be NICE then!
As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.
We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.
11 Responses to “Localism or a postcode lottery?”
RT @leftfootfwd: Localism or a postcode lottery? http://bit.ly/csw0Lb
@mjrobbins RT @leftfootfwd Localism or a postcode lottery? http://bit.ly/csw0Lb
On a @leftfootfwd catch-up now – this one on the conflict between localism and postcode lotteries is excellent: http://s.coop/4am
Dear Left Foot Forward
I could not agree more with Dr Henderson. I’m afraid all this call for localism is pure political spin. Once the papers get hold of someone not getting a treatment or a local authority service which can be got in the next door borough or GP commisoning consortium they will buckle.
I don’t think the Coalition realised how hard it would be to get rid of the quangos. “Bonfire of the quangos” played well to the gallery in May. Now I think they’re happy to bring them under more direct ministerial control. So much for doing away with New Labour control freakery!