TMJ 'dysfunction' - Health implications

The NHS has wasted millions of pounds on MS drugs which did nothing to help patients, according to experts.

A 04 Jun 2010 report called for a Government-backed scheme to provide the drugs to be scrapped and called for a public inquiry. In total, at least £250 million could have been saved if a review had been carried out on the “costly failure” after its first two years.

In 2002, they were rejected for use on the NHS by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s drugs rationing body, because they were too expensive.

However, the following year the Government and the pharmaceutical companies involved agreed to start a “risk sharing” scheme, which saw an initial reduction in the price with the promise of more to come if the drugs did not work very well.

A key feature of its design was that the price of the drugs would be cut if they proved ineffective (Note, the drugs will not be abandoned if they are useless, just a reduction in price!). However, there had been no price reduction over the previous six years, despite signs that the drugs were not working . So even though a reduction could have been applied for but the chums abandoned even that - may be a director ship was in the offing!

Recent research results indicate that patients actually did worse on the drugs than if they were given a placebo.

This money could have been used to help other health service patients. Charities backed the call for the scheme to be abandoned. Set up in 2004, it was intended to allow expensive MS drugs on the NHS. (Now there is no discussion of the uselessness, but just could we have them cheaper!)

Prof George Ebers, from Oxford University, one of a number of MS experts who have written articles in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) criticising the project, said: “The scheme may have been well-intentioned, but perhaps the public interest would be served by an independent inquiry.”

The four drugs involved Avonex, Betaferon, Copaxone and Rebif, cost around £8,000 per patient per year. Please remember the names.

Tuesday, 25 September 2012

Teriflunomide, another MS DMD, has been priced at $45,000 per year for American MSers. Even more astounding was the news that glatiramer acetate and fingolimod have increased their prices to over $50,000 per year.

"The global MS drug market is now estimated at $10 billion, and is predicted to experience double-digit increases on an annual basis. Two MS drugs are now in the top 20 in terms of global sales: glatiramer acetate (Copaxone, produced by Teva) was #12 in 2011, with sales of $3.3 billion, followed by interferon beta 1a (Avonex, Biogen Idec) at #20 with $2.5 billion.

"Currently, drug costs account for more than half of the total cost of care for MS.
Prices in the US are higher than almost anywhere else, and because of these prices, the value of any drug will be lowered. For example, the cost to provide one quality of life year (QALY) from an MS drug may be unacceptably high in the US – over $800,000 in one recent study. In the UK, by contrast, interferon treatment costs approximately $12,000 USD annually, and because of this lower cost, the value of MS drugs dramatically improves. One could reasonably argue that it is patently unfair for the American health care system to pay such a premium for these needed therapies. If overall pricing is justified, is the disproportionate US burden our gift to Europe and the rest of the world?"

Hauser SL, Johnston SC. Multiple sclerosis drugs: sticker shock. Ann Neurol. 2012 May;71(5):A5-6.

Comment: Needed therapies!

I thought they were proven useless! Please note how "Useless" has disappeared from the vocabulary. Just how much does it cost?

We will have the British version please, since we have nothing better to do with our money. At least the adverse effects are assured - for which we will use more drugs!"
© 2012 M. Amir All rights reserved
Challenging the existing standards in dental and medical care comes with significant costs. Through my website and this forum, I have highlighted practices that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, contribute to ongoing illness. This disruption is not welcomed by the authorities overseeing our healthcare system. To continue publishing evidence-based articles, sharing discoveries from my own patients' experiences that have led to their recoveries through a unique approach, and educating thousands of health professionals and patients globally, we require some support. If this article has substantially enhanced your understanding, please consider making a donation through this link: PLEASE CLICK TO DONATE

Thank you! A heartfelt thank you to everyone who has generously contributed. Your support is deeply valued and enables Dr. Amir to persist in his mission of fostering improved dental and medical practices globally.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTICE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is written in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998: UK Public General Acts 1998 c. 42 SCHEDULE 1 PART I Article 10, with the intent of serving the resilient British public. This legislation clearly states, Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. We are committed to addressing any form of harassment, whether direct or indirect, by government bodies or their affiliates, in line with this act and the principles that protect freedom of expression. Additionally, any breaches of the Data Protection Act will be promptly reported to the Information Commissioner's Office and The Law Society ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Disclaimer: This educational article focuses on health benefits from individual perspectives and doesn't imply widespread results. Important to seek a doctor's advice before taking action. It's meant to enhance, not substitute for, medical advice and doesn't detail all possible uses or risks. Always prioritize professional medical advice over information read here.