9.00-10.00pm BBC TWO
On a finite budget, the National Health Service can't afford to offer patients every treatment on the market, so how does the nation decide which patients should be the winners – and who should be the losers? BBC Two has secured exclusive and unprecedented access to NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), the controversial body that decides which drug treatments the NHS can afford. Its judgements have precipitated many bitter battles over the last decade but, for many, the people behind the process remain shrouded in mystery.
Focusing on cancer drug Revlimid, award-winning documentary-maker Adam Wishart follows those who must decide whether to approve the drug and those who will be affected by the outcome. They are: Professor David Barnett, chairman of the NICE appraisals committee, charged with assessing its effectiveness; cancer patients including Julia Gatt and Eric Rutherford, whose lives depend on the decision; Sol Barer, head of the American drug company that discovered Revlimid and profits from it; and NHS manager Sophia Christie, who has to deal with the financial consequences of the committee's decision.
The programme tells the compelling story of the people whose everyday lives are affected by this intricate process. Will Julia and Eric get the drug they need and, if so, will Sophia be forced to make cuts to her budget in other areas? The very human conflicts that arise open up for debate a bigger moral question – how much is life worth, and how much should society pay?
I've not seen Adam Wishart's programme yet, but I hope that he will examine the use of outdated and narrowly focused statistical models by NICE in order arrive at their decisions.
Posted by: J Turner | 16 June 2009 at 01:22 PM
Dear Adam Wishart,
You obviously tried to be even-handed in your programme tonight on BBC2 about NICE but you failed to deal adequately with one important point: government responsibility.
You made it clear that the government lays down guidelines for the work of NICE, which are based primarily on monetary considerations. The government may have decided to spend the huge amount of £90 billion on the NHS, but you didn't ask if more money could be available to meet the numerous needs of the NHS. Yet the government spends more than £30 billion of our money on armies and armaments - supposedly to protect our people against future wars. Yet people are allowed to die when at least some of that money could be much better spent on saving or extending people's lives NOW.
Our government, whichever party leads it, can choose ethical priorities. But they all waste huge amounts of our taxes on things that don't deserve prioritisation.
Posted by: A. Augarde | 17 June 2009 at 10:31 PM