Stop stifling innovation
Despite having had billions poured into its coffers, the NHS, in England in particular, has got itself into a terrible mess. Trusts, both in primary and secondary care, are struggling to balance their books.
This week we publish a News
feature (p315) looking at the impact of the financial
difficulties on pharmacy. In hospitals, the main problem seems to be the freezing
of jobs. In the community, there is more of a direct effect on patient services.
The News feature focuses on primary care trusts in and around London, but there
is no reason to think that there will not be similar effects in other parts of
the country. Established services, such as smoking cessation, are either not
being financed or requests to establish them are being refused.
The NHS confederation expects these problems to be short-lived. According to
its deputy director of policy, trusts are concentrating on funding their core
business rather than service development — at the moment. However, as core
business involves paying the salaries and pensions of staff — many of whom
have received generous increases over the past two years — it is difficult
to understand why it will not be an ongoing problem.
Reform — a right-of-centre, non-politically aligned think-tank — argues
that the Government is promoting the idea that the financial problems are a series
of local deficits which are the result of faults by local management: “This
approach will lead to new forms of post-code rationing as reductions are made
in local services. The current situation creates a false division between the ‘white
knights’ at the centre handing out new programmes and the ‘knaves’ in
local management blocking progress.”
Stifling innovation at the local level in order to pay for the excesses of the
past is not a solution to better health care. Let us hope that Sir Ian Carruthers,
acting chief executive for the NHS, understands that and is able to do something
about it.
Back to Top
|
Trials tragedy
There may be two unintended consequences of the tragedy involving the six young men who volunteered to take part in a Phase 1 trial of a drug designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis and leukaemia (p307).
First, the number of volunteers willing to come forward and risk their
health may be greatly diminished unless an explanation for the dramatic
and unexpected side-effects is given quickly.
Secondly, support for campaigners against animal testing could ebb away
if people accept — however uncomfortable it makes them feel — that
animals have a significant part to play in drug testing and it has to
continue until other effective means of testing the safety of drugs are
developed.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal