Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The cancer survival data in this report[1] come from the EUROCARE collaboration of cancer registries and are not new. What is added is, as one would expect from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, comparative information about the use of anticancer drugs. The interesting thing is that as well as slow uptake of new medicines the UK spends less on some well-established agents compared to its economic peer group nations. This points to British cancer patients having less access to treatment.
Another international comparison that highlights the UK’s poor performance when it comes to cancer is the latest Mirror Mirror report from the Commonwealth Fund[2]. This US-oriented analysis shows the UK to rank best among 11 nations for healthcare with the exception of the all-important outcomes domain. The high (but not top) ranking of the UK in the access domain is flattered by affordability associated with a “free at the point of access” service, as is the equity domain.
The anomaly in the Mirror Mirror report and the low takeup of anticancer medicines very likely results from the subtle but very definite way in which the NHS excludes people from care. It is very evident for cancer patients that people who live in poorer neigbourhoods have less access and the BMJ has carried many items which show impaired access in association with deprivation, they simply have not been collated[3]. It is now time to asses with some urgency how the present financial distress of the NHS affects poorer people.
References
1] Jönsson B, Hofmarcher T, Lindgren P, Moen F and Wilking N. Comparator Report on Patient Access to Cancer Medicines in Europe Revisited- A UK Perspective. IHE Report 2017:1 Lund, Sweden
2] Schneider EC, Sarnak DO, Squires D, Shah A, Doty MM. Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care. New York, The Commonwealth Fund, 2017.
3] Crawford SM Exceptional requests for care surge as rationing deepens: Access is not equal. BMJ 2017;358:j3188/rr0
Competing interests:
No competing interests
26 July 2017
S Michael Crawford
Clinical Lead for Research
Airedale NHS Foundation Trust
Skipton Road, Steeton, Keighley West Yorkshire BD20 6TD
Re: Seven days in medicine: 12-18 July 2017 ABPI sponsored report on cancer drugs. Time for action on deprivation
The cancer survival data in this report[1] come from the EUROCARE collaboration of cancer registries and are not new. What is added is, as one would expect from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, comparative information about the use of anticancer drugs. The interesting thing is that as well as slow uptake of new medicines the UK spends less on some well-established agents compared to its economic peer group nations. This points to British cancer patients having less access to treatment.
Another international comparison that highlights the UK’s poor performance when it comes to cancer is the latest Mirror Mirror report from the Commonwealth Fund[2]. This US-oriented analysis shows the UK to rank best among 11 nations for healthcare with the exception of the all-important outcomes domain. The high (but not top) ranking of the UK in the access domain is flattered by affordability associated with a “free at the point of access” service, as is the equity domain.
The anomaly in the Mirror Mirror report and the low takeup of anticancer medicines very likely results from the subtle but very definite way in which the NHS excludes people from care. It is very evident for cancer patients that people who live in poorer neigbourhoods have less access and the BMJ has carried many items which show impaired access in association with deprivation, they simply have not been collated[3]. It is now time to asses with some urgency how the present financial distress of the NHS affects poorer people.
References
1] Jönsson B, Hofmarcher T, Lindgren P, Moen F and Wilking N. Comparator Report on Patient Access to Cancer Medicines in Europe Revisited- A UK Perspective. IHE Report 2017:1 Lund, Sweden
2] Schneider EC, Sarnak DO, Squires D, Shah A, Doty MM. Mirror, Mirror 2017: International Comparison Reflects Flaws and Opportunities for Better U.S. Health Care. New York, The Commonwealth Fund, 2017.
3] Crawford SM Exceptional requests for care surge as rationing deepens: Access is not equal. BMJ 2017;358:j3188/rr0
Competing interests: No competing interests