Cancer Drugs Fund: Millions haven’t been spent

December 26th, 2011

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Patients being turned down in underspent regions – with some funding their own drugs

By
Jenny Hope

Last updated at 12:00 AM on 26th December 2011

The flagship fund set up by the Government to provide life-extending drugs for cancer sufferers is millions of pounds underspent while patients are still being rejected for treatment.

Almost £200million was allocated to the Cancer Drugs Fund during this financial year yet alarming figures show that in some areas less than one-fifth of money has been spent.

One of the biggest culprits is the region covering the Prime Minister’s Witney constituency in Oxfordshire. Only £1.6million out of £9.3million – around 17 per cent – had been spent in the South Central strategic health authority area from April to the end of November.

Outraged: Tory MP Pauline Latham said two patients in her constituency denied access to drugs have spent thousands of pounds of their own money on treatment

Promises: Andrew Lansley was among the ministers who pledged extra funding to pay for drugs banned

Outraged: Tory MP Pauline Latham (left) said two patients spent thousands of pounds of their own money on treatment while Andrew Lansley (right) was among the ministers who pledged extra funding to pay for drugs banned

Postcode lottery: Patients are being denied access to drugs like Avastin (pictured), with some even funding treatment themselves

In other underspent regions cancer patients are being turned down, with some having to fund their own drugs. The Rarer Cancers Foundation charity has warned that the fund is simply another postcode lottery.

Tory MP Pauline Latham was outraged that the East Midlands panel of the Cancer Drugs Fund has decided not to approve treatments given the go ahead by seven other strategic health authorities, although a third of its budget – £4.3million – is unspent.

Two patients in her constituency of Mid Derbyshire denied access to the drug Avastin for bowel cancer have spent thousands of pounds of their own money on treatment. One is ‘living proof it works because she has been taking it for two years’, Mrs Latham told MPs during a debate last week.

They were turned down because Avastin was the first drug they were treated with – protocol said it had to be the second drug and then the NHS would have paid for it.

15 miles from a lifeline

Mrs Latham said she was ‘appalled at the way those patients are being treated’ and had asked for the decision to be reviewed weeks ago, yet this still had not been done.

‘The Cancer Drugs Fund was set up to stop this kind of lottery,’ she added. ‘In my area, it is not fit for purpose and is not working for the benefit of patients.’

Campaigners fear that millions of pounds meant to ease the suffering of cancer patients will disappear to pay off NHS debts. If the funding set aside this year is not used, there is no guarantee it will be earmarked for cancer patients next year.

The funding from the Department of Health covers England only and is administered by clinically led panels set up by ten strategic health authorities.

Each has different amounts to spend on cancer drugs, ranging from around £9million to £30million, depending on population size.

Only North East SHA says it will spend its entire allocation of £11million by next April. Two others are going to spend half, while the remainder have so far spent between 14 per cent and 66 per cent.

Ministers pledged extra funding to pay for drugs banned by Nice, the NHS rationing body. Andrew Lansley, then Tory health spokesman, said on the day before the 2010 General Election: ‘We will ensure through our new Cancer Drugs Fund that patients will be able to get the drugs that their doctors say they need. That is what patients expect and deserve.’

Andrew Wilson, chief executive of the Rarer Cancers Foundation, said: ‘By the end of 2011 thousands of patients will have gained access to treatments through the Cancer Drugs Fund, yet a significant proportion of the fund is going unspent.

‘There is ample money available to pay for the cancer drugs which clinicians believe will benefit their patients. We are calling on strategic health authorities to use this money for its intended purpose, to improve access to cancer treatments and ultimately improve cancer outcomes.’

Health Minister Simon Burns said: ‘It is vital that patients, no matter where they live, have access to the cancer drugs so they can spend precious extra time with their loved ones.

‘Since October last year, we have committed to making £650million available through the Cancer Drugs Fund that has so far helped over 7,500 patients access cancer drugs recommended by their doctors.

‘If SHAs have met the clinical need in their area for cancer drugs then technically they could use any underspend on other areas, but we are clear that this is money marked for cancer drugs and would expect it to be carried forward into the next year’s Cancer Drugs Fund.’

East Midlands SHA said it had given Mrs Latham ‘an undertaking to report back from the latest discussions with clinicians about the funding of Avastin by the Cancer Drugs Fund’.

South Central SHA said: ‘Since April 2011 until the end of November 2011, the South Central fund has received 493 applications of which 416 have been approved, 26 have been declined and the remaining have been withdrawn or are pending a decision.’

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

Newest
Oldest
Best rated
Worst rated

One thing that the Government could do immediately is to allow people to have CyberKnife Treatment which at the moment is only available in Harley Street in London. Trust me this Treatment does works and it gives hope to those who would otherwise be left with nothing but because it is expensive very little is said about it which is absolutely typical of any Government.

– Richard, London, 26/12/2011 06:04

I suspect the only reason Davey-Boy announced that here would be a Cancer Drugs Fund was that it would make him look good.
Cancer treatmenst are very expensive £200 million is probably not enough to adequately fund treatment for cancer patients who are denied the best cancer drugs due to the stupid rulings of NICE.
I also suspect that maybe the Dept. of Health is placing pressure upon Strategic Health Authorities to not overspend; ergo, if a SHA does overspend, then its managers can always dip into their share of the Fund to make up the shortfall. Maybe I’m being a more than a bit cynical, but the fewer patients who receive help from the Fund, thus meaning they won’t be treated means that the Govt. doesn’t have to pay these people’s pensions.

– Emma. D, Somewhere only I know, 26/12/2011 05:01

Oh finally it has been exposed how the government is failing cancer patients and it is true patients are paying for it because my 21 yr old fiance is dying of a brain tumour which could have been helped if he was given the proper medication and treatment also just to add they left him paralysed by cutting through a wrong nerve ! Thank you NHS proven yourselves to be butchers and liars

– Megan, Britain, 26/12/2011 02:15

EVERY TIME THEY MAKE A BREAK THROUGH WITH CANCER DRUGS,ITS THE ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DONT GET THEM,THEY ARE FOR THE WEALTHY, YET ITS THE POOREST IN SOCIETY WHO GIVE MOST TO CHARITY,BUT THE LAST TO GET THE DRUGS THEY NEED. THE GOVERNMENT ARE USELESS.ANDREW LANSLEY IS A WASTE OF SPACE.

– frances, fenton staffs, 26/12/2011 02:07

Mags, Surrey Boarders………….Yes I did read the article. But I still wouldn’t give. I know it’s to do with the Government but money meant for such purposes should reach them. Thousands of lives could be saved each year if people did their job properly. The Macmillan nurses are the only ones who seem to. At lease I KNOW where my money goes as I am heavily involved with animal charites.

– Evie, Kent, 26/12/2011 01:04

Every year millions of ordinary people give to Cancer Research, then when the researchers who have been sponsored by these charitable donation actually achieve something, they charges the same people thousands more to have the treatments they sponsored. Either the price of the drugs should come down, or people should stop their contributions.

– Robert Browne, Liverpool England, 26/12/2011 00:57

You can bet the burocrats running the fund have spent all they can on wages, expenses and bonuses for themselves!

– George, England, 26/12/2011 00:39

“This is DISGUSTING! One of the reason why I won’t give. Rather give to animal charities. At least THEY have hearts of gold. – Evie, Kent”—————–This fund is to do with the Government – it isn’t a charity. Did you read the article?

– Mags, Surrey Borders, 26/12/2011 00:38

This is DISGUSTING! One of the reason why I won’t give. Rather give to animal charities. At least THEY have hearts of gold.

– Evie, Kent, 25/12/2011 23:46

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.