03-08-2016, 07:46 AM
11
Re: HIV pill
Originally Posted by TessA
->
The worrying thing is, if people are promiscuous they could, perhaps, pass HIV on to their next partner
03-08-2016, 08:02 AM
12
Re: HIV pill
Originally Posted by orangutan
->
Still thinking about this one, but I was somewhat gobsmacked to read in the link that the NHS said it was not responsible for it as it is preventative. So why do they encourage all that statin prescribing if not for preventative reasons??
My OH is on statins because the Doctor says he has to have it . Not because he went to the Doctor saying I want to eat a really unhealthy diet therefore I have to have statins .
Some people naturally have more cholesterol in their body .
If there was some easy way of not having to take statins then that's what he would do .
As I understand it the HIV drug is not required if you use condoms . Therfore I don't see the comparison.
03-08-2016, 10:50 AM
15
Re: HIV pill
HiThe reason it costs more here are the development costs.
Drugs cost a fortune to develop, the NHS is part of an International Scheme to pay pharmaceutical companies on a cost plus basis,
This allows for research and development to continue into new drugs.
Countries like India and China just rip them off.
The cost comes down in 2021 as part of this agreement.
The USA pays more than we do, it is $1300 a month there.
The link explains.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/286774b4-8...#axzz4GGAqPKFB
03-08-2016, 10:59 AM
17
Re: HIV pill
I hope I didn't offend anyone with my rather rude remarks last post.But I am quite angry about this, as per todays Daily Mail article...
__________
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-rationed.html
What a skewed sense of values: NHS told to give out Ģ5,000-a-year 'promiscuity pill' to prevent HIV - as vital cataract surgery is rationed
NHS set to prescribe a drug to prevent HIV despite concerns it's expensive
There are also worries the new pills could encourage 'sexual risk taking'
High Court judge ordered health officials to provide the daily Prep pills
The move comes at a cost to taxpayers of up to Ģ20million a year
Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: 'There isn't a bottomless pit to spend on the NHS. We've got to prioritise and decide where we should rank this in the list of NHS spending priorities.
'The fact that we're depriving cancer patients of crucial drugs at the expense of other treatments is something we've got to look at. You can't fund everything on the NHS.
'You've got to wonder what reaction you'd get if you looked a cancer patient in the eye to explain you haven't been able to fund their treatment because you've prioritised other treatments.'
Dr Peter Saunders, chief executive of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: 'This is a strategy fraught with dangers. Making Prep freely available to already promiscuous homosexuals could well encourage more sexual risk taking and more sexually transmitted disease as a result.
03-08-2016, 11:13 AM
18
Re: HIV pill
If condoms were an adequate alternative there would be a lot less unplanned pregnancies. Condoms are not 100% effective due to misuse or failure.A chap on the radio yesterday was saying how he buys the tablets online form an Indian website for Ģ45 a month, where does the quoted figure come from? Another example of the NHS being ripped off with, no doubt, government complicity.
We clearly do not have a National Health Service, more a National Illness Service. Prevention has to be better than cure, how much does treating an HIV+ person cost compared with the cost of these tablets? It is not just the cost of the drugs but, once AIDS is present, the economic cost as well. It's a no-brainer, surely.
The NHS (i.e. Jeremy 'H'unt) must know it is on a sticky wicket by the tone of the slimeball put up on the TV news yesterday who explained while the court case was won, the drug still had to be considered against 17 other treatments for such things as children with cystic fibrosis. When such blatant emotion manipulation is brought into the argument, they must know they are in the wrong.
03-08-2016, 11:20 AM
19
Re: HIV pill
Originally Posted by Devo
->
If condoms were an adequate alternative there would be a lot less unplanned pregnancies. Condoms are not 100% effective due to misuse or failure.A chap on the radio yesterday was saying how he buys the tablets online form an Indian website for Ģ45 a month, where does the quoted figure come from? Another example of the NHS being ripped off with, no doubt, government complicity.
We clearly do not have a National Health Service, more a National Illness Service. Prevention has to be better than cure, how much does treating an HIV+ person cost compared with the cost of these tablets? It is not just the cost of the drugs but, once AIDS is present, the economic cost as well. It's a no-brainer, surely.
The NHS (i.e. Jeremy 'H'unt) must know it is on a sticky wicket by the tone of the slimeball put up on the TV news yesterday who explained while the court case was won, the drug still had to be considered against 17 other treatments for such things as children with cystic fibrosis. When such blatant emotion manipulation is brought into the argument, they must know they are in the wrong.
The drug in question, Trevada, is not 100% effective either.
Condoms protective against other STDs at the same time as they protect against HIV, Trevada does not.
03-08-2016, 11:21 AM
20
Re: HIV pill
Originally Posted by Nom
->
Does not matter who has the bill councils or NHS, its the taxpayer who pays in the end.
|
|
