Post Office bosses and the government came under fire last night as it emerged a third of pensioners in Norfolk and West Suffolk are set to be left without their local branch - reports the Eastern Daily Press.
An estimated 82,200 elderly people in the area will be affected, forcing them to travel further to a post office.
Fifty post office branches are set to shut as part of controversial nationwide cuts to the network, caused by the government's refusal to increase subsidies for loss-making branches.
The government's stance over funding of post offices is in stark contrast to Gordon Brown's approval of the European Union budget deal, which increased our payments to the EU by an astonishing 63% to £115m (net) every single week between now and 2013 - putting the £150m annual subsidy for post offices in the shade.
Approval was given despite the EU's accounts not having been given a clean bill of health by auditors for the past thirteen years, and the organisation's terrible repuation for waste and fraud.
Help the Aged yesterday criticised the closure plan and accused the Post Office of ignoring the older population.
Pensioners are a primary customer base for post offices, with thousands collecting pensions from them each week.
Dr Alan Burnett, the charity's senior policy officer, said: “When you have a mobility problem or difficulty getting around, a journey extended by only half a mile is not a simple matter of a little more exercise - it is almost a complete removal of the service.
“Older people in Norfolk and West Suffolk are contacting us to say they feel ignored by the consultation process. It's beginning to seem as if the Post Office is merely paying lip service to government consultation regulations and not really listening to the valuable local information being given to them.
“If older people are not listened to, and their needs are not taken into account, the consequences for many will be extremely serious.”
So far, 970 branches have shut across the country, out of the 2,500 earmarked for closure. Less than 4% have been saved, despite numerous campaigns.
On a national scale, millions of pensioners are struggling with simple day-to-day tasks as a result of the ongoing closures, and Help the Aged claim that 2.3 million people will need to travel at least half a mile further afield to find a replacement post office.
Last night, two of the counties' MPs spoke angrily of the impact the scheme was set to have on their constituents, branding the consultation “farcical”.
Richard Spring, MP for West Suffolk, said: "We always said the post office closures would hit the most vulnerable, most particularly in rural areas. They are part of village life.
"We've been through a farcical consultation. They have decided in a completely arbitrary way without any consideration. The figures are shocking, but I'm not surprised.
"I'm grateful to Help the Aged for highlighting the impact. It only fortifies the view I had.”
Christopher Fraser, MP for South-West Norfolk, said: “The figures are simply appalling. The government's decision to cut funding for the sub-post office network is a cynical, cost-cutting policy that will prove devastating to those living in the countryside.”
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Monday, 21 July 2008
Access to arthritis drugs denied
Around 60,000 people in the UK with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are being denied access to potentially life-changing drugs - reports ITV News today.
A decision by the National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) will mean that patients will not able able to try a second anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) if their first attempt at the therapy fails.
Anti-TNF therapy drugs - adalimunab, etanercept, infliximab - can slow the progress of disease and help to reduce symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, mobility and fatigue.
NICE said that giving patients two, or even three, anti-TNFs is not 'cost-effective' and that doctors should offer patients the next drug in line - rituximab - which costs about £3,000 less per year than the cheapest anti-TNF.
This is yet another example of health services restricting effective drugs on the grounds of costs that, if provided, could greatly improve many people's quality of life. All the while the government shamefully continues to waste an astonishing £115m a week on the audit-failing European Union.
Charities have said that moving from one therapy to a second or third has been established practice in the UK for years and the change could leave sufferers with pain and the possibility of long-term disability.
Rob Moots, ARMA clinician and professor of rheumatology at Liverpool University, said: "It's almost impossible to know which anti-TNF will work for a patient at the outset.
"Before this decision we could try patients on each of the three treatments in turn to find one that was effective for them - now we only have one shot at success.
"This flies in the face of clinical judgment. Many patients will be left in astonishing pain, while knowing we haven't explored all the options for them."
The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register shows that around 70% of patients will get a good response from a second anti-TNF if the effects of the first start to wane.
Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, said the move, combined with a Nice decision in April to reject the drug abatacept, meant effective therapies for arthrities provided by the NHS had been cut from five to two.
She added: "This decision is another nail in the coffin for the treatment of RA in England and Wales.
"Nice are re-writing the rules of RA treatment in this country, ignoring the clinical effectiveness of drugs and ignoring the views of patients and clinicians.
"Nice is systematically taking away clinically effective and proven treatments from patients and giving them just one roll of the dice when it comes to Anti-TNF treatment."
Ros Meek, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA), said: "Nice's decision takes away access to a normal and independent life for the many thousands of people battling with the condition.
"It also totally contradicts Lord Darzi's pronouncements in his recent review of the NHS - in particular his focus on patient choice and patient empowerment.
"It's a prescription for pain."
A spokeswoman for Nice said: "Nice has not yet issued final guidance to the NHS. Consultees now have the opportunity to appeal against the draft guidance. Subject to an appeal being received, guidance is expected in September 2008."
A decision by the National institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) will mean that patients will not able able to try a second anti-TNF (tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) if their first attempt at the therapy fails.
Anti-TNF therapy drugs - adalimunab, etanercept, infliximab - can slow the progress of disease and help to reduce symptoms such as joint pain, swelling, mobility and fatigue.
NICE said that giving patients two, or even three, anti-TNFs is not 'cost-effective' and that doctors should offer patients the next drug in line - rituximab - which costs about £3,000 less per year than the cheapest anti-TNF.
This is yet another example of health services restricting effective drugs on the grounds of costs that, if provided, could greatly improve many people's quality of life. All the while the government shamefully continues to waste an astonishing £115m a week on the audit-failing European Union.
Charities have said that moving from one therapy to a second or third has been established practice in the UK for years and the change could leave sufferers with pain and the possibility of long-term disability.
Rob Moots, ARMA clinician and professor of rheumatology at Liverpool University, said: "It's almost impossible to know which anti-TNF will work for a patient at the outset.
"Before this decision we could try patients on each of the three treatments in turn to find one that was effective for them - now we only have one shot at success.
"This flies in the face of clinical judgment. Many patients will be left in astonishing pain, while knowing we haven't explored all the options for them."
The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register shows that around 70% of patients will get a good response from a second anti-TNF if the effects of the first start to wane.
Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, said the move, combined with a Nice decision in April to reject the drug abatacept, meant effective therapies for arthrities provided by the NHS had been cut from five to two.
She added: "This decision is another nail in the coffin for the treatment of RA in England and Wales.
"Nice are re-writing the rules of RA treatment in this country, ignoring the clinical effectiveness of drugs and ignoring the views of patients and clinicians.
"Nice is systematically taking away clinically effective and proven treatments from patients and giving them just one roll of the dice when it comes to Anti-TNF treatment."
Ros Meek, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance (ARMA), said: "Nice's decision takes away access to a normal and independent life for the many thousands of people battling with the condition.
"It also totally contradicts Lord Darzi's pronouncements in his recent review of the NHS - in particular his focus on patient choice and patient empowerment.
"It's a prescription for pain."
A spokeswoman for Nice said: "Nice has not yet issued final guidance to the NHS. Consultees now have the opportunity to appeal against the draft guidance. Subject to an appeal being received, guidance is expected in September 2008."
Labels:
abtacept,
anti-TNF,
arthritis,
drugs,
NHS funding
Friday, 4 July 2008
Salford: Woman fights for NHS cancer drug
A woman terminally ill with kidney cancer could now be given a drug which could prolong her life, after a High Court ruling - reports ITV News.
Sutent has not yet been approved by the government and is not automatically available on the NHS.
Jean Murphy, a 62-year-old grandmother from Salford, had twice been denied the drug by Salford Primary Care Trust on the grounds that it is too expensive.
Dr Mike Burrows from the trust said before the ruling: "We have a limited amount of resources and have to make decisions on which treatments we are prepared to fund and which we cannot fund. We have to use health economics to support those decisions."
Ruling on the case, Mr Justice Burnett said the Trust's commissioning panel had failed to consider Mrs Murphy's application "in the round", and to take into account her day-to-day responsibility for caring for her husband who has a heart condition and diabetes.
This is yet another example of how the abject waste of £115 million a week paid to the audit-failing European Union - an unjustifiable 63% increase on the annual amount Britain paid between 2001-06 - is causing real suffering and shortfalls in essential public services.
In particular, Salford MP Hazel Blears needs to explain why she voted to approve paying this extra money to the EU while her local hospital clearly cannot provide services her constituents need, and blame a "limited amount of resources".
With public finances tightening, we can no longer afford to hand over so much money to the European Union. Especially as the "majority" of the EU's spending has not been approved by auditors for 13 years running, and there are so many reports of waste and fraud - going on even within EU institutions themselves.
Evidence continues to grow that it's time to Stop the Cheques to the EU.
Sutent has not yet been approved by the government and is not automatically available on the NHS.
Jean Murphy, a 62-year-old grandmother from Salford, had twice been denied the drug by Salford Primary Care Trust on the grounds that it is too expensive.
Dr Mike Burrows from the trust said before the ruling: "We have a limited amount of resources and have to make decisions on which treatments we are prepared to fund and which we cannot fund. We have to use health economics to support those decisions."
Ruling on the case, Mr Justice Burnett said the Trust's commissioning panel had failed to consider Mrs Murphy's application "in the round", and to take into account her day-to-day responsibility for caring for her husband who has a heart condition and diabetes.
This is yet another example of how the abject waste of £115 million a week paid to the audit-failing European Union - an unjustifiable 63% increase on the annual amount Britain paid between 2001-06 - is causing real suffering and shortfalls in essential public services.
In particular, Salford MP Hazel Blears needs to explain why she voted to approve paying this extra money to the EU while her local hospital clearly cannot provide services her constituents need, and blame a "limited amount of resources".
With public finances tightening, we can no longer afford to hand over so much money to the European Union. Especially as the "majority" of the EU's spending has not been approved by auditors for 13 years running, and there are so many reports of waste and fraud - going on even within EU institutions themselves.
Evidence continues to grow that it's time to Stop the Cheques to the EU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
