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."

Warwickshire: Woman in High Court sight battle

A woman who could lose her sight has been given permission for a test case at the High Court to try to get an NHS Trust to fund her treatment - reports the BBC.

Warwickshire Primary Care Trust refused to pay for Patricia Meadow's eye treatment, even though the drug is available in other areas.

The trust took a "resource-based" decision not to fund treatment, the court heard, meaning it has insufficient funding from central government to provide the care Ms Meadows needs.

Ms Meadows suffers from wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in her left eye, and dry intermediate AMD in her right.

There is no treatment for the dry condition, but there is hope that a course of the drug ranibizumab (trade name Lucentis) will save the sight in her left eye.

The High Court heard from her lawyers that objective medical evidence shows a course of the drug has up to a 95% chance of arresting her eyesight deterioration.

They said there was also a chance of it improving her vision and without treatment she could lose her sight in a matter of months.

Her case is being backed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Mr Justice Undershill gave permission for a judicial review to be heard within a matter of weeks.

David Lock, appearing for the PCT, said that Novartis, the manufacturer of Lucentis, was refusing to provide the support recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice).

He said: "Without the manufacturers support, Nice has clearly advised that this is not a cost-effective treatment.

He said the PCT had to balance a budget of £668m and it was impossible to meet all the needs of patients.

So while this is the case, why has the government agreed to giving the audit-failing European Union a massive and unreasonable 63% increase in payments, taking Britain's contribution to an astonishing £115 million (net) every single week?

It's people like Ms Meadows who are being forced to pay the price of the utter waste of huge amounts of public money on the EU.

Norfolk: Retired fireman loses battle for cancer drug

A retired fireman has suffered a setback in his battle to win funding for a cancer drug, reports the Eastern Daily Press.

Liver cancer patient Barry Humphrey has lost an appeal for a £5,000 trial for a drug aimed at buying him more time.

His upset wife Hazel says health bosses have “sentenced him to an early death” though their latest decision.

After 25 years service saving lives as a fireman in London, Mr Humphrey developed a rare cancer, triggered by hepatitis caught from a casualty during a rescue.

But officials at NHS Norfolk have decided not to fund treatment recommended by his consultant, saying Mr Humphrey's case fails to meet national cost-effectiveness guidelines on new drugs.

The couple, from Kimberley Road, are now seeing if there is anywhere else they can take their fight.

Funding the two-month trial treatment themselves was a last option - but they were reluctant having been told they would be opting out of the NHS, resulting in them having to pick up all treatment costs.

Fewer than 5% of liver cancer patients survive more than five years, so time is not on the Humphreys' side without some kind of treatment. And Barry says his consultants believe there are no other alternative drugs.

NHS Norfolk medical director Bryan Heap said treatment funding decisions were taken on clinical rather than social circumstances, so Mr Humphrey's past as an exemplary citizen unfortunately could not be taken into consideration.

The cost of Sorafenib, along with administration, extra scans and follow-up was £150,000 a year, and trials indicated an increase in life expectancy of 12 weeks, with no cure or reduction of symptoms.

Guidelines recommended not funding a new drug if the figure was greater than £30,000, he added.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrats health spokesman who has been backing Mr Humphrey's battle, said he was “horrified” by the appeal refusal, and would be seeking to meet a senior official from NHS Norfolk to argue the case.

Kidney cancer man's drugs fight

A man with kidney cancer says he has been refused a drug that could save his life and is still waiting for treatment 18 months after being diagnosed - reports the BBC.

Jocelyn Hall, 60, of Tonna, Neath, is taking his local health board (LHB) to judicial review after it refused to pay for him to have the drug, Sunitinib.

Neath Port Talbot LHB said each case for the drug was reviewed individually.

Mr Hall was diagnosed with kidney cancer in September 2006, a fortnight after he gave his notice so he could retire after working in Neath's Metal Box can factory for 44 years.

Surgeons were unable to operate because his tumour had spread to other organs.

Mr Hall's oncologist at Swansea's Singleton Hospital, Professor John Wagstaff, said the drug treatment he wanted his patient to have cost £2,300 every six weeks.

He said: "I've got a number of patients in exactly the same situation, not just with Neath Port Talbot but with other LHBs in south west Wales.

"It's a continuing battle. If he does not get this drug, the only management available to him is to control his symptoms."

Mr Hall's sister, Rosemarie Snow, said: "He has worked all his life and paid into cancer research all his life and he's got nothing.

"The drugs won't cure him but they will help prolong his life. After he worked 44 years of his life, he wants to enjoy his retirement.

Kate Spall, who has become a patient support advocate since her mother died from a rare kidney cancer, said Mr Hall was the "most exceptional" of the more than 40 cases she had advised.

She said: "He has not treatment for nearly two years for terminal cancer. That is just unheard of.

"In Wales today, somebody has not had had one piece of active treatment. That's Third World. That's unbelievable."

A spokeswoman for Neath Port Talbot LHB said she could not comment on individual cases because of confidentiality.

But she said that the local health board took guidance from the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, which said the use of Sumitinib should not be supported in Wales.

Alzheimer's drug ban to stay, court rules

Alzheimer's victims in England and Wales suffered a blow yesterday when the courts ruled that they would not be prescribed drugs that could ease their suffering - reports the Daily Telegraph.

Campaigners branded the decision "morally reprehensible" after a High Court judge upheld the decision by the drug's rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), to ban three new drugs; Aricept, Reminyl and Exelon.

NICE ruled that only those with severe Alzheimer's could have them. The drugs, which cost £2.50 per patient per day, can slow the disease.

Harriet Millward, the deputy chief executive of the Alzheimer's Research Trust, said: "We are devastated that these drugs will remain unavailable on the NHS to people with early-stage Alzheimer's. We need to do more research, but it is hugely underfunded."

Gordon Lishman, the director general of Age Concern, said: "People with dementia will have to get much worse before they receive help."

NICE has refused to reveal how it calculated whether these drugs were cost effective in cases of mild Alzheimer's.

The ruling comes after Ivan Lewis, the health and social care minister, admitted that the NHS was failing the 600,000 patients with dementia.

While Ivan Lewis recognises the problem, clearly the necessary funds just aren't available to tackle it - for example by offering clinically effective new drugs like these on the NHS.

So in this context how is it justifiable to reward the audit-failing EU with a 63% rise in payments - handing over £2.5bn extra year (net) on top of the £3.5bn we already pay?

Who needs that money the most - Alzheimer's sufferers or Brussels? And why aren't minsters - and even some MPs no doubt with Alzheimer's sufferers and their families among their own constituents - being more responsible with the finite 'pot' of public money?

MP's back Wilson's drug plea

Two Manchester MPs are backing a campaign by music legend Anthony Wilson to persuade local health bosses to provide a pioneering cancer drug on the NHS - reports the Manchester Evening News.

Mr Wilson - known as `Mr Manchester' - was denied a new drug for kidney cancer called Sutent on the NHS and is now paying for the £3,500-a-month treatment with the help of friends.

Sutent has doubled the life expectancy of some patients in trials but is still being assessed for use across the NHS so individual health trusts are deciding on a case-by-case basis if they wish to fund it.

Two patients being treated alongside Mr Wilson at the Christie ARE receiving funding for the therapy because they live a few miles away in Cheshire, where a much higher proportion of patients are being funded.

Health bosses in Cumbria have also decided to fund the treatment for their patients, some of whom are cared for at Manchester's Christie Hospital.

Graham Stringer MP for Manchester Blackley and Tony Lloyd MP for Manchester Central have written to Manchester Primary Care Trust to ask them to pay for the drug until the Government watchdog decides whether Sutent should be provided nationally.

The letter reads: "We are writing to you following reports in the Manchester Evening News that a number of patients in Greater Manchester are not being allowed to be treated with the kidney cancer drug called Sutent, although we understand patients from Cumbria and Cheshire are receiving this treatment.

"We consider this to be completely unacceptable and would ask you to review this policy."

Health bosses say they have to make very difficult decisions in order to provide the best care for patients and have good procedures in place to look at the effectiveness of new drugs.

The M.E.N. has learned that in the last 16 months PCTs in Greater Manchester have turned down eight requests for Sutent backed by doctors at the Christie and approved one, while Central and East Cheshire PCT have turned down one patient and approved two.

Four people who were refused treatment with the new drugs on the NHS , including Mr Wilson, are paying privately.

He said: "I want to know what has happened to the 11 people who can't afford to pay for treatment.

"I want to know what their lives are like now, have they been sentenced to death by this decision? It is a scandal."

Manchester NHS Primary Care Trust, which has refused to pay for Mr Wilson's treatment, says there is not enough `demonstrable evidence to support the use of this drug in treating kidney cancer.'

But Prof Robert Hawkins, a kidney cancer expert from Christie, believes the refusals come down to cost - even though he estimates the total bill if Sutent was routinely available on the NHS would be £2m a year for Greater Manchester.

He said: "There is no doubt it would be available if it was cheap. I will now be able to prescribe Sutent to patients from Cumbria but not routinely to anyone else - which puts me as a doctor in a difficult position.

"I am delighted local MPs have asked the PCTs to look again at this issue. The PCTs in the north east looked at the best available new evidence and cost-effectiveness data taking full account of recent price reductions and accepted it was a cost-effective treatment. I would urge the Manchester PCTs to look again at this fuller information."

Tony Lloyd said: "If someone living a few metres over the border into Macclesfield can have this treatment but someone living in my constituency cannot, it can never be acceptable."

When the medical experts, in this case senior doctors from the Christie who are certainly regional experts and is some cases nationally and internationally renowned, recommend a treatment for a certain condition we have to take that seriously."

Graham Stringer said: "We are asking them to reconsider, this is not a maverick treatment, it is recommended by doctors and some patients are already being treated with it."

We contacted Manchester PCT but they said they were unable to comment on the letter because it raised issues involving health trusts across Greater Manchester.

Previously Shauna Dixon, clinical director for Oldham PCT, which is leading Greater Manchester cancer drug commissioning, said: "Every effort is made to make sure the best care is provided to patients.

"All NHS trusts give careful consideration to the very difficult decisions they make when they look at individual cases to make sure they safely meet their medical needs. A clear framework is used to ensure there is good evidence to demonstrate a drug is effective."

Pain relief drug ruled too costly for the NHS

Thousands of arthritis sufferers will be denied treatment with proven benefits by a decision not to pay for a new drug, reports The Times today.

In another example of how the extra £2.5bn a year that the government has unjustifiably pledged to the EU could be used to help those who need it most - rather than handed to an organisation that has failed its audit for twelve years in a row - the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is to recommend that the new drug Abtacept (Orencia) does not represent "value for money".

Yet the drug has been shown to improve dramatically the severest symptoms of arthritis in almost half of patients.

Its manufacturer, Bristol Myers Squibb, estimated in its application to NICE that around 3,500 patients a year would benefit. But other studies show that around 12,000 patients could potentially benefit.

Published data shows that in trials Abatacept produced a 50% reduction in symptoms in about 40% of the patients who used it in conjunction with an older drug, methotrexate.

Though the cost would be about £9,300 a year on average, all of those treated would be sufferers who had already been treated unsuccessfully with anti-TNF drugs, which are equally expensive.

Ailsa Bosworth, chief executive of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society said, “This is extremely bad news for people living with severe rheumatoid arthritis.

“Denying patients the option of Abatacept leaves some of them with the unacceptable choices of being put back on to treatments they have already failed on, palliative care or taking large doses of steroids, which have unacceptable side-effects over the long term.”

A NICE spokesman said: “Having examined cost-effectiveness analyses on the drug against a range of comparators, the committee concluded that Abatacept could not be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources.”

The problems of balancing drug costs against benefits have led a growing number of patients who are denied treatments to resort to legal action.

Undoubtedly, any MPs who approve this blatant waste of public money by voting in favour of the European Communities (Finance) Bill when it comes before Parliament in the next session will forfeit any claim to be supporting the development of a modern, effective health service.

Stoke: What price for a life?

One of the two kidney cancer patients being denied a wonder-drug by North Staffordshire's NHS has died.

Married mother-of-one Carole Buckley had been refused Nexavar treatment on the NHS by North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT).

The 48-year-old was still waiting for the result of her appeal against the PCT's decision when she died last week.

Mrs Buckley has told The Sentinel in June: "Unless the PCT decides I can have this drug, there is nothing else for me. I find it really scary that my life is in someone else's hands."

News of Mrs Buckley's death has angered fellow kidney cancer sufferer Angelena Buxton who is also being denied Nexavar by the same PCT.

The 56-year-old is paying £3,200 a month for Nexavar herself and has launched the Need Nexavar Now campaign to try to force the PCT's hand.

Angelena, who lives in Baldwins Gate, said: "If Carole could have gone on the drug for a couple of months it might have made all the difference. She has been going all this year without treatment.

"I know the PCT only has so many funds but it should preserve the sanctity of life. That's what doctors swear in their oath but it is not being done.

"Carole was a lovely person. We had spoken lots on the phone. She was frightened but it was the only option. I'm thinking now of her family - her husband and daughter."

After being refused the drug Mrs Buckley, who lived in Scholar Green and had her GP in Kidsgrove, had started pioneering stem-cell transplant treatment at Christie's Hospital, Manchester.

Angelena said: "She was very nervous about going in when I spoke to her three weeks ago. She had made the decision that she couldn't afford Nexavar.

"She had been told it would have been better if she could have gone on Nexavar first but because she couldn't afford it and the PCT wouldn't fund it they brought it forward."

Angelena's sister Gemma Austin, aged 62, of Trentham said: "I'm devastated. I believe she has been condemned to death by the PCT. Why couldn't they have paid for the drug?

"I didn't know her personally but I know what her and her family have gone through.

"What price is there on a life? Even if it didn't suit her the PCT could have let her try."

Nexavar is licensed for use in the UK but no national guidelines for its use have been issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice).

How can any MPs seriously be considering gifting the EU billions more pounds a year - a 60% increase in payments - while auditors can't explain where the "majority" of the £3.5bn a year we already hand over has been going for the last twelve years, and while this kind of drug rationing in the NHS is costing lives?

People's lives clearly depend on that money. MPs shouldn't be content to vote it away to wasteful and already lavishly-funded organisations like the EU, or they can expect to pay the price for such irresponsibility come the next election.

Cancer sufferers to be denied drug on NHS

Another story today - this time from the Daily Mail - of NHS patients being denied the drugs they need on grounds of cost.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has rejected the drug Erbitux (also known as cetuximab) for cancer sufferers in England and Wales.

Campaigners said the move was a blow to patients as the drug is the first one licensed in the last 40 years for treating locally advanced head and neck cancer.

In January, Nice also rejected an appeal from charities over its decision to reject Erbitux for bowel cancer patients.

Today's decision covers using Erbitux in combination with radiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer.

Nice chief executive, Andrew Dillon, said: "The evidence presented to the independent advisory committee did not persuade them that cetuximab works any better or offers better therapeutic value than existing treatments for head and neck cancer.

"The NHS has finite resources and it is our job to ensure that these are spent on treatments that confer enough of a benefit to patients in relation to the amount of money they cost."

Erbitux plus radiotherapy increases the average survival for patients from 29 months to 49 compared to patients who receive radiotherapy on its own.

More than 7,800 people are diagnosed with head and neck cancer in the UK every year. Today's announcement comes after a Swedish study published earlier this month showed that the UK has one of the worst records over access to new cancer drugs.

Experts ranked the UK in the bottom group for its "slow and low" uptake of drugs after analysing sales in 25 countries.

Dr Vinod Joshi, from the Mouth Cancer Foundation, said: "This is an extremely sad day for people living with locally advanced head and neck cancer in England and Wales.

"Nice has effectively denied them this new treatment option for a chance to live longer.

"There is now a postcode lottery as the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) has approved not only cetuximab but also docetaxel (another head and neck cancer drug) for Scottish patients."

Christine Piff, chief executive of the head and neck cancer support group Let's Face It, said: "I am devastated by the news. Head and neck cancer continues to be the Cinderella cancer, receiving little or no attention from the NHS.

"It is scandalous when you consider the emphasis placed on other cancers. Why shouldn't people suffering from head and neck cancer have access to a drug that is prescribed in Scotland?"

Dr Nick Slevin, consultant oncologist at the Christie Hospital in Manchester, added: "The decision from Nice ignores the complexities and pragmatism of clinical practice.

"I have no doubt that cetuximab with radiotherapy is the correct treatment option for some patients.

"Head and neck cancer management is not black and white and I believe this decision is discriminatory against a group of patients who don't carry the same political influence as others."

Denise Richard, head of the oncology business unit at manufacturers Merck Serono UK, said: "We are seriously considering all of our options with regards appealing this decision since we strongly believe that patients in England and Wales deserve to have access to the same standards of care as those in Scotland and the rest of Europe."

Fears over NHS funding gap for new drugs

The BBC reports today that cancer doctors fear the NHS will not be able to afford the growing number of new drugs being developed to fight cancer, and that patient face having to pay for more drugs themselves.

Responding to a BBC questionnaire, 180 specialist cancer doctors have said that they are either worried or very worried about the situation.

Some drugs, like Herceptin for breast cancer, have won NICE backing as being cost effective for the health service. But others like Tarceva, which can extend the life of lung cancer patients, have been turned down.

Specialists like Nick James, professor of clinical oncology in Birmingham, believe the gap between what the NHS can fund and what is available is going to get bigger.

"The drugs in the pipeline are going to cause even more pressure. I think politicians need to be honest and say this gap is going to be there and we need to look at ways of filling it," he said.

Stephen Allen is one patient who already pays £3,000 every six weeks for drugs alone. Mr Allen is terminally ill with kidney and lung cancer and had been told he only had six months to live.

NHS funding for the drug recommended for him was refused, with letters explaining the health service has limited resources and faces very tough decisions.

He said: "I didn't realise we had to pay for certain drugs. If they'd said from the start there are certain drugs on the list which aren't available to you, we probably would have understood a little bit easier the situation they're in."

So Mr Allen is spending savings he wanted to leave for his wife in the hope of living to see the first birthday of his youngest grandchild, two-month-old Annabelle.

Cancer charities also remain concerned about the issue of drugs, and continue to campaign for funding for individual medicines. An appeal on Tarceva is due before NICE this summer.

Many also want a much more transparent debate about how much health service money should be allocated to cutting edge cancer treatments.

Dr Jesme Fox, medical director of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, says she is appalled some people spend the last few months of their life in a desperate fight for NHS funding.

The average time from diagnosis to death for lung cancer patients is six months.

"If they're not going to be allowed to access drugs that improve survival by a few months, or improve their quality of life, we need to have an honest debate about how we're going to have to fund these things."

While it's true that the NHS has received a record increase in funding in recent years, it's still clearly not enough to meet many people's treatment needs.

So is it appropriate for MPs to vote billions of pounds away to the EU while this remains the situation? Is it acceptable to waste £2.5bn more a year on an organisation that cannot get its accounts approved by auditors, while people are denied relief-giving - even life-saving - drugs by the NHS if they can't afford to pay for them?

Can such an attitude possibly be compatible with claiming support for public services? MPs will have trouble making that stick, come the next election - if they approve the unjustified 60% increase in funds for the EU.

NHS leaves war hero to go blind

Ex-RAF flight engineer Dennis Devier, 84, is already blind in one eye and faces going blind in the other, because his local NHS trust has turned down funding for the drug that would save his sight.

Losing his sight fully will mean he can no longer care for his wife Frances, and they would have to be separated for the first time in 60 years - reports the Daily Express.

Mr Devier has been diagnosed with wet age-related macular degeneration, which can be treated with the drug Lucentis. He has already spent more than £8,000 on private treatment, but the high cost of care is draining his life savings.

Mr Devier said: "If I go blind, it will cost the taxpayer thousands more to look after us both - it's madness."

In his typically plain-speaking style, Mr Devier's local MP Boris Johnson hit the nail on the head when he said: "I find it utterly incredible that we are posing these alternatives to a man at his time of life - cough up, or say goodbye to your eyes."

This is a sad real-world story, no doubt repeated many times across the country, that those MPs intending to reward an audit-failing EU with an extra £2.5bn a year would do well to remember.

Especially if they imagine that boasting about 'record' sums the NHS has received is some kind of justification for approving the obvious waste of large sums on the EU.

Do they really believe the NHS is a 'mission accomplished' - that no more funds are required? This story, and many others, would indicate otherwise.

People like Mr Devier are those who pay a real price of such a lax attitude by some MPs to safeguarding scarce public funds. Those MPs are merely risking their jobs, when the time comes for them to explain such bad choices to local voters.

Wimbledon: Patients hit by high drug costs

A radical shake up in prescribing medicine could mean some of the borough’s sickest residents are forced to pay more for drugs – reports the Wimbledon Guardian.

Since January, doctor’s surgeries in Sutton and Merton have been encouraged by the primary care trust (PCT) to prescribe regular medication to last for 28 days at a time.

This could result in some patients on regular medication having to fork out a prescription charge of £6.65 every month, rather than paying the same charge for a longer-lasting supply.

Geoff Martin, head of campaigns for pressure group Health Emergency and a Unison official said: "It sounds to me like the PCT is using this as an opportunity to claw back more money and will hit some people very hard in the pocket.

One Merton resident, who did not wish to be named, used to pay £13.30 for a six-month supply of two types of drugs she has taken regularly since having cancer.

She is furious about the new regime, now facing a £159.60 a annual bill, saying: "I may have to do without one of the drugs now, if I can’t afford it."

- Article contributed by: R.A. C-H, Wimbledon

Oxfordshire: 'Drugs would help me live longer'

The Oxford Mail reports today that a cancer sufferer fears he will die before he can finish his revolutionary eco-home because he has been refused what he believes is a life-saving drug.

Malcolm Cole, 67, from Fulbrook, near Burford, says he knows the Multiple Myeloma cancer he developed in 1993 will kill him eventually, but says a new drug called Velcade could buy him two more precious years of life.

That would give the former RAF officer the time he needs to complete a unique underground energy-saving home he has been working on for years.

However, although Velcade is available on prescription in Wales and Scotland, and in some prmary care trust areas in England, the South West Oxfordshire NHS PCT has denied Mr Cole the drug.

The trust said it followed the advice of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) which said the drug, which costs £30,000 for a course of treatment, was not cost effective.

Mr Cole says he is in a battle against time to get Velcade and believes that without the drug he will die of Multiple Myeloma, a form of bone marrow cancer, before Christmas.

"Doctors have given an oath to try to preserve life, but they have the power over life and death and I feel they have decided to end my life.

Mr Cole said he had seen evidence which showed the drug had a 70 per cent success rate, but PCT spokesman Alison Brumfit said: "Decisions made on funding are based on the cost of something against how likely it is to be effective.

"There has never been a limitless pot of money and it's true that the less money we have got, the fewer treatments we can provide, but decisions are never solely based on cost."

Certainly funding can never be "limitless" - nobody believes that. But there could be a lot more money available for less "effective" yet nevertheless helpful treatments if Oxford's MPs weren't so keen on wasting billions more on the audit-failing EU.

Thousands denied eye drug over NHS costs

The Times is reporting today that thousands of patients whose sight could be saved by a new drug are being denied treatment on the NHS on the ground of cost.

Macugen, a new treatment for age-related macular degeneration, is launched today but primary care trusts (PCTs) are already telling patients that they will not pay for it.

A quarter of a million people in Britain suffer from "wet" AMD, the form of the disease that Macugen can treat. Every year, 21,000 more people, mostly over 60, have this form of the disease diagnosed.

But Macugen has not yet been cleared by NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and will not be for at least another year.

Specialists fear that many patients will go blind while they wait. The delay has been condemned by the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB)which has given warning that many patients will lose their sight before a decision is made on approving the drug.

NHS can't afford drug that transforms lives

A row over a "breakthrough" treatment for diabetes broke out yesterday as it was rejected for NHS use by the Government’s drug watchdog on the grounds that it was not cost effective.

The new product, insulin that is inhaled, could transform the lives of sufferers, who have to inject insulin up to five times a day. However, it costs about £500 a year more per patient, reports The Times.

This latest example of "drug rationing" came as Tony Blair insisted that the NHS was not facing disaster despite thousands of job losses and cutbacks in expensive treatments as a result of a financial squeeze.