My goodness, reading comprehension certainly isn't your strong point:
And impartiality is certainly not yours.
The first article you cite, from the IEA healthcare unit, is 10 years old and prior to major increases in NHS funding. You have been told this already. Incidentally the IEA is on the right wing free-market fringe, so forgive me for not counting it as an impartial authority on the matter.
Ah, you don't agree with their politics so they are liars. Got it. And 10 years is not that long ago when it comes to governmental matters.
The second article you cite is from the Times, in 2008. It deals specifically with the n(for example) in the Scottish NHS. Interestingly, it goes on to set out the appeal mechanisms and notes that (for example) nearly all of those in Mid Essex were then given the requested treatment.
Now I have to question your reading comprehension. It's not primarily about Scotland. And the only thing it says about Mid Essex is this
Figures obtained from 62 trusts show widespread regional variations in the chances of being granted access to these drugs.
Of 25 patients living in Mid Essex who applied for nonapproved treatment, only one had a request rejected, while all three patients who made requests in neighbouring South West Essex were turned down, the Taking Exception report notes.
The only thing it says about appeal mechanisms is this:
NHS trusts have a legal obligation to provide treatments approved by NICE. In the absence of such approval, if a doctor thinks that someone would benefit from a new medication, the patient must appeal to a committee at the local trust, which can choose to fund it as an exceptional case.
Those who are refused must settle for a less effective treatment or pay privately for the drugs – at the risk of having all their other NHS care withdrawn.
The report also has this little gem:
Nationally, the most sought after drug was Sutent (sunitinib), for advanced kidney cancer, one of the four medications rejected by NICE in its draft guidance.
It was also the most commonly denied drug, refused to 119 of the 219 patients who applied for it between October 2006 and last month.
So you can twist and reinterpret it all you want, but it won't change the fact that cancer drugs are denied to people every day.
That this was held up as a scandal in one of the leading UK papers speaks volumes. As I recall, you have been challenged to show that US healthcare insurers provide these medicines as a matter of course. You have failed to do so. So really, not a compelling case there either.
I've already linked to a CIGNA guidance approving lapatinib.
Here it is for the drug in question in the article. And CIGNA is one of the worst. Of course, you still won't find it compelling even though it proves my point.
The third source you direct us to is from a letters column in the Guardian and appears to be written by some big names. Alas, it provides no data on evidencial sources whatsoever. Bit hard, therefore, to judge whether it's an accurate reflection or not.
Some of the biggest names in UK Medicine and they are echoing exactly what I'm saying here. They live your system everyday and know it better than any of us on here. You can dismiss them if you want, but that's just your ideology talking.
The final article you refer to is from 1999. The last time I looked, that was some 11 years ago. The headline looks very compelling until you read the report and discover that the group complaining about lack of access to these drugs is "sponsored by 10 pharmaceutical companies". Well, that makes them absolutely neutral then, eh?
Again, you can dismiss the report, which was published in a peer-reviewed journal, if you want to. Doesn't make it any less true.
So is that the best you can do XJX? Let me remind you: half the cost, every single permanent resident covered, comparable clinical outcomes.
Now it's your turn. Cite me an article, journal, etc. that shows NHS has comparable
clinical outcomes. Not life-expectancy, not infant mortality. Clinical outcomes.
Better yet, cite me some real evidence that shows the NHS covers everyone's medical needs equally throughout the country.
I won't hold my breath.
