Your Press
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email »
Drug changes could save £3m
1:07pm Friday 18th May 2007
Comments (13)MORE than £3 million - that's how much NHS cash could be saved in North Yorkshire and York if doctors prescribed drugs more efficiently.
A report by an independent Government watchdog has told GPs they could free up millions of pounds for the region's cash-strapped primary care trust (PCT) without affecting patient care.
The National Audit Office (NAO) urged doctors to change their ways and prescribe cheaper, generic drugs that are just as effective as more expensive branded ones.
Today's report to Parliament by the head of the NAO, Sir John Bourn, identified large variations between PCTs in the extent to which local GPs prescribed lower cost drugs for the same conditions.
According to the report, North Yorkshire and York PCT could save a staggering £3,005,413.
And East Riding of Yorkshire PCT could save even more - a total of £3,114,317.
Those figures dwarf the results from the best-performing PCTs. The auditors identified a possible saving of only £371 in Redcar and Cleveland, for example.
The report found that it was difficult for GPs to take in all the information they received about prescribing - and were influenced by both official NHS advice and the pharmaceutical industry.
There was also a "significant" cost to the NHS from medicines being wasted by being dispensed to patients but not used.
Edward Leigh MP, chairman of the influential Committee of Public Accounts, said: "Today's NAO report clearly demonstrates that GPs are often not providing value for money for the NHS in the way they prescribe drugs and medicines.
"Every day, we hear of people being denied vital treatments in the NHS on the grounds of cost, and yet now we learn that at least £200 million could be saved each year through GPs prescribing cheaper, generic drugs that are just as effective as more expensive branded ones.
"Some small changes to how GPs prescribe could free up a lot of money for our struggling NHS. But for this to happen GPs will need to be less influenced by the blandishments of the drugs industry and more focused on getting value for money in their prescribing.
"Enormous sums are also being wasted through drugs being prescribed to patients but not used. By looking at only one measure of wastage - those drugs returned to the NHS unused - the NAO found its cost to the NHS to be over £100 million a year."
The Press has highlighted the plight of several patients who have been unable to get treatment from the region's PCT. These include Ian Dobbin, who was facing death after health chiefs refused to fund the £25,000 treatment he needed. The PCT later relented.
Meanwhile, eye patient Thelma Nixon had to rely on the generosity of an anonymous donor to fund treatment for wet macular degeneration in her eyes.
Sir John said: " If GPs more often followed official guidelines and prescribed generic and other cheaper drugs where suitable, then there would be more money to treat patients and pay for expensive or innovative treatments.
Dr David Geddes, medical director for primary care at the North Yorkshire and York PCT, and a GP himself, said: "We are the third biggest PCT in the country so it (the potential saving) has to be put in context.
"Prescribing generically is well-established within North Yorkshire and York PCT as a means of making sure we have the most cost-effective means of medicating. Not all drugs can be prescribed generically, but a lot of good work has gone on.
"I wouldn't want this report to be seen as being critical of North Yorkshire and York. We have moved a long way in supporting GPs and nurses to prescribe cost-effectively and maintaining good clinical practice.
"One of the greatest causes of waste continues to be patients - a lot of excess drugs are thrown away every month. We recognise that patients often are left with excess medication which really adds to the waste. Therefore we would want patients to be responsible in requesting medication repeats from their GP."
Branded and generic drugs
A generic version of a drug is pharmaceutically equivalent to the branded version, containing the same active ingredients at the same strength, but may only be produced after the branded drug's patent has expired.
Brand name drugs are normally much more expensive than generic versions of the same product because, for example, of manufacturers seeking to recover research and development costs.
For instance, in October 2006, generic simvastatin 20mg - a drug used to treat high blood cholesterol levels - could be bought for £2.34 for a pack of 28, compared with £29.69 for a pack of 28 of the branded version.
Your Say YourYork Press
julie, huntington says...
5:46pm Fri 18 May 07
john, s west says...
7:24pm Fri 18 May 07
A GP, Leicester says...
8:02pm Fri 18 May 07
Too true were else in the world would you get UNLIMITED appointments with a qualified Dr of at least 6 years post graduate training for £52 per year. Yes that is the price per year for GP care. Compare this to £57 per visit to an NHS Walk In Centre.
Lets not forget the MILLIONS wasted by the DOH on computer systems that hinder medical care.
ITSTEE, North Lincolnshire says...
9:10pm Fri 18 May 07
a patient, North Yorkshire says...
9:45pm Fri 18 May 07
Hello, Dr. Geddes.
Perhaps the money that is saved in this scheme could be used to treat the hundreds of people that you have personally turned away from the NHS for treatment?
Jack, York says...
4:11pm Sat 19 May 07
. Keep up the good work.
a patient, North Yorkshire says...
12:16am Sun 20 May 07
Jack wrote:If he's fighting the patients' corner, why does he allow his name to be put on the letters telling patients that they cannot have the treatment that their GP/consultant/surgeo
Dr Geddes is a good bloke - hes a good Doctor and gives the PCT the credibility it needs. Ive no doubt there are far too many beaurocrats in the place but he is the one fighting the patients corner, with very littel gratitude
. Keep up the good work.
n tells them they need?
This is the guy who's heading up the "exceptions panel" that the Press, doctors and patients are desperate to get rid of!
If I were in his position, I'd be worried about how many patients are going to SUE him for the decisions that he and his cronies are making.
Keep up the good work, my ar$e.
v, york says...
1:39am Sun 20 May 07
why blame doctors who work 60 hours a week and get paid for it.
they also face risk of being sued by some idiot for no reason
a patient, North Yorkshire says...
9:14am Sun 20 May 07
Benefits and re-education are not paid out of NHS coffers. You seem to be confusing the NHS with social care. The NHS is a medical organisation.
You said:
Why blame doctors who work 60 hours a week and get paid for it
What's your point here? They do their work and get paid for it... so do the vast majority of other people. It's just that some of the GP's could modify their prescribing practices slightly so as to save a bit of money here and there. Save a penny, save a pound, as my granny would say.
As for calling those who sue 'idiots', I beg to differ. Imagine the following (fictional) scenario:
1. Patient sees their consultant, who says they need operation X to enable them to walk again. Consultant says that unfortunately their case has to be approved for funding first by a committee because the PCT is running out of cash.
2. The patient's doctors fill out an application form for the operation, all keeping their fingers crossed etc., knowing that the patient needs the operation to be able to walk again.
3. The application for funding is refused by a committee, headed up by a GP (so as not to make it look like the medical reasons for rejecting the application weren't considered).
4. Patient subsequently ends up in a wheelchair.
If you were the patient, wouldn't you want to make sure that the person who made the decision was forced to review how and why they made that decision in front of a judge? Suing someone isn't just about compensation. Although, in this (fictional) case, the patient would frankly NEED compensating so as to help with the additional costs of modifying their home to be wheelchair friendly etc. Let's face it, if the PCT won't fund the operation to keep someone mobile, why would they fund the equipment to help with the consequences of not helping them in the first place?
Just wait until you've had a letter from this guy detailing why you're not worthy of NHS treatment which the National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends (but for which the PCT refuses to pay for). I do hope that the PCT realises that the NHS has a legal obligation to fund anything that NICE recommends. Maybe when they remember that, they'll get rid of the appalling prior approval/exceptions panel monstrosity.
In reply, York says...
10:50am Wed 23 May 07
I like the way you have missspelt 'Uneducated' in your post. The irony!
'these unemployed and uneductaed people living on social benefits are burden on NHS.'
also check your 'English for beginners' guide on where to use 'a' and 'the'.
Also, I think you will find it is very hard for a judge and a court of law to decide someone can be sued for 'no reason'
The time normally fits the crime.
Doctors and the like deserve respect for helping people, and they generally get it, but when the do the opposite of helping people and mess up, they deserver the opposite. It's a risk of the job they are paid considerably well for living with.
After all, a medical professional may get sued and be left a bit of pocket, if thats even the case, but the person their mistake affected, whether it be because they were overtired or just slipped up that day, whatever reason, could be left without a limb, a life full of agony where it could not have been the case without the medical professionals mistake, or just a considerably shorter life than otherwise would have been.
To be honest V you sound like the uneducated one.
T. B. Collett, York says...
11:04am Wed 23 May 07
Diagnosis = PCT, Yorkshire says...
11:09am Wed 23 May 07
Deleting and misreporting or downplaying on serious reports may seem the easy (yet underhand) option but it is also the option that will eventually put people in Jail, just like where Dr Mayur Gopal from Leeds recently ended up for his covering up.
If you would rather put peoples lives at risk than admit your mistakes or let them be known (i.e actively trying prevent them coming to light) then a cage is certainly the correct place for you. Especially so of those that work in the medical profession and do this. And those that assist this people or do not have the guts and honesty to come forward about them, though it may be difficult, have a hand in the blame for not doing so.
No one really wants to be ill or on incapacity benefits. The government would save more money all round by treating these people. Then they can stop claiming benefits and get back to work and start paying taxes.
And for you people guidable enough to believe the hype and think people on benefits are the major bleed to the system, consider the people who really soak up all of the tax payers money, those paid massive sums of money and make a mess of the system, use tax payers money to have their castles re-decorated or take private jets and Jaguar's at your cost then I hope someday you realise the tools and fools your been used as by the real bleeds of the tax payers money.
It is so much easier for you people to blame the easy target rather than aim for the expenses abusing politicians, and trust managers that soak up or throw infinitely larger amounts of tax payers money than a thousand people on benefit would ever be capable of soaking up. Its a bit pathetic really that you dont have the guts to face the real culprits of the waste of tax payers money and would rather assist them by putting the attention on the poor sole ended up on benefits and taking it away from them. Its all a political spin that too many gullible people have fallen for, while the real culprits are laughing at you.
Don't blame the sick person for not been able to contribute to the system (though most of them, and their relatives will have been contributing for most of their life anyway) blame the people who are responsible for keeping them sick and untreated.
The people responsible for managing this system, in York at least, seem to be getting paid massive wages of York Tax payers money (10x more than any person on benefits would soak up) so they can have nice cars and big houses for running a service in a way that it cannot even provide examinations and treatments that cost £500 for a person, a service that leave people with cancer to die without the treatments they need , go blind due to lack of funding and be in pain for years without examination, and so much more we have not heard about and may never hear about. There are two types of people that find it hard to fight back and make their complaints head, dead people and ill people and there are certain people in York's medical profession and administration who play on this, you know who you are.
Where has all this money gone? York is not a relatively poor or over populated town, a lot of people have private insurance as well, yet it is one of the most in debt in the country. Is the money going somewhere it shouldn't be? Is it time York Primary Care trust was given a serious audit of the 'investigation' kind to find out exactly where it has all gone and to who? And then get rid of the bad egg(s) responsible? Hopefully we can once again have the health service in York we were used to.
Dr David Geddes
In this section
- Police Concerned for Missing Pickering Woman
- Hundreds object to proposed location of new big wheel in York
- Transport minister to face York rail HQ meeting
- Information plea following Sherburn-in-Elmet crash
- Coroner blasts carers’ firm over death of grandfather
- ‘Most residents will have caught swine flu before Christmas’
- Drunk ‘idiot’ sparks alert over Claudia Lawrence body claim
- Experts in plea over River Ouse porpoise sightings
- York woman picks up uninvited hitch-hiker... a snake
- York Station ticket barriers plan set to be approved
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Administrator, says...
1:12pm Fri 18 May 07
It is only a few weeks since the comments facility was fully restored to stories on this website. Already it is being abused with obscene, racist, cruel and downright nasty comments from an ignorant minority.
If you have a point to make please keep it within the bounds of decency expected on a community newspaper website. We do not want to shut it down again and deprive the sensible majority of their right to express a point of view.
Administrator