Campaigners threaten legal action over UK-US deal on prices NHS pays for drugs | National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Campaigners opposed to the UK’s controversial drug pricing deal with Donald Trump are threatening the government with legal action if it does not scrap a key element of the plan.
They claim a change in the way drug treatments are approved by the NHS could lead to them being paid even higher prices, amounting to an “illegal power grab”.
The plan could allow the health secretary to override an independent decision by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) on how much the NHS should pay for certain medicines.
Campaign groups Global Justice Now And Fair Treatment He warned the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) that they could seek a judicial review in the high court over the legality of such a move.
They told the department they would continue to seek a judicial review unless it repealed legislation (secondary legislation) introduced last month that gave ministers the power to overrule Nice. The institute is respected worldwide for its independence from ministerial control.
Nice’s loss of its long-standing independence as the body that decides which drugs the NHS in England and Wales should buy is part of the government’s medicines deal with the Trump administration, announced last December.
Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said: “This is a government gambling with the lives of NHS patients in a geopolitical game with Donald Trump.
“They risk sabotaging our carefully developed mechanism to control the overinflated prices of big pharmaceutical companies, and they have done so without much debate in parliament.”
Lawyer Leigh Day sent a nine-page “pre-claim letter” to the DHSC on behalf of the group and Fair Treatment. Conservative former health secretary Andrew Lansley said the legal document was illegal because it conflicted with the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
MPs from various parties, including Labor, have expressed concern over the secrecy surrounding the deal and the government’s refusal to release an impact assessment of the long-term cost of the decade-old deal with the White House, provide any details in responses to parliamentary questions or allow a debate on it in the House of Commons.
Diarmaid McDonald, Director of Fair Treatment, said: “They have refused to publish their own assessment of the damage the deal will do to the NHS and have used a parliamentary process designed to make it extremely difficult for MPs to properly scrutinize what they are up to.
“But we believe the process they followed was unlawful and we are prepared to take them to court to defend NHS patients and our democracy.”
The Guardian reported last month how dozens of MPs from various parties had shown concern about the potential end of Nice’s independence and believed Lansley’s government was breaking the law.
Ministers said the deal would mean more NHS patients would have access to innovative medicines. This will ensure that UK pharmaceutical exports to the US remain duty-free for three years.
A DHSC spokesman denied the change invalidated Nice’s independence.
“Nice’s independence will always be maintained. He will continue to provide guidance and advice completely free from political interference, balancing clinical effectiveness with ensuring taxpayers get a good deal,” they said.
“There is a revolution taking place in medical science and we are determined that this will benefit patients and make it easier to bring innovative medicines to the NHS.
“This will mean thousands of patients will have access to life-changing new treatments, including the recent approval of a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12.”
A DHSC source added: “Nice’s legal framework states that ministers cannot direct Nice on the content of its recommendations.
“Nice remains responsible for independently deciding whether a medicine should be recommended as a clinical and cost-effective use of NHS resources.”
