Dozens of MPs oppose Streeting’s new power to say what NHS pays for drugs | Wes Streeting

Dozens of MPs are opposing Wes Streeting’s decision to give himself the power to determine how much the NHS pays for drugs; Concerns are growing that this decision may be illegal.

Thirty-one MPs have signed a House of Commons motion voicing their disapproval of giving the health secretary the power to overrule a decision by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) on how much the NHS should spend on individual medicines.

They fear the change is a “power grab” that undermines the role Nice has played in England and Wales since its founding in 1999 as an arbiter of what value for money the drugs the NHS can buy and therefore patients can receive. Nice is widely viewed internationally as a model for how to guard against drug companies charging excessive prices.

Labour, Green, Liberal Democrat, Independent, Scottish Nationalist and Plaid Cymru MPs supported A “prayer” tabled by Labour’s former shadow chancellor John McDonnell. MPs may use “prayer” as a way to show their disagreement with a legal document (secondary legislation or regulations on which they have not voted) that the government is using to implement a policy change it has decided upon.

a legal tool He recently authorized Streeting to “direct Nice as to the applicable cost-effectiveness threshold to be applied to a health technology under evaluation” as part of the government’s drug pricing agreement with the Donald Trump administration.

McDonnell said: “One of the clear aims of establishing Nice was to insulate the NHS from the powerful and well-resourced lobbying activities of the pharmaceutical industry.

“The government’s changes to Nice as a result of the US pharmaceutical agreement undermine the independence of Nice and give major US pharmaceutical companies the potential for enormous influence over our drug policies.

“This risks valuable NHS resources being diverted from life-saving practices and handed over to pharmaceutical companies to the detriment of patients.”

Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman Helen Morgan said Streeting had been given the power to run Nice because prime minister Keir Starmer had bowed to the “tyrant in the White House”.

He said: “This change to Nice rules is clearly coming at Trump’s behest, not because the government thinks it will help patients.”

Ministers have defended the deal as a way to help Britain avoid tariffs on pharmaceutical exports to the US and give patients access to potentially life-extending drugs that would otherwise be denied.

MPs’ concerns have been joined by an unlikely ally: former Conservative health minister Andrew Lansley, now a peer. He tabled a “motion of regret” in the House of Lords, saying the regulations risked undermining Nice’s independence and also appeared to be incompatible with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which “provides that the secretary of state’s direction should not be relevant to the substance of Nice’s recommendations”.

Meanwhile, the overall UK/US agreement has caused growing alarm among health experts. The Health Foundation think tank has warned that the NHS spending more on drugs will “difficult cuts”To other services that improve patients’ health more cheaply.

Economist Eric Yang said in a recent blog: “Given worsening funding pressures from high demand and demographic changes, the NHS cannot afford to sacrifice resources for a higher drug bill in the short term. Spending the NHS budget has always involved making difficult trade-offs, but the UK-US drug pricing deal means the trade-offs will now become even tougher in the future.”

In a scathing editorial on Thursday, Kamran Abbasi, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, said the deal would mean: “UK taxpayers will harm vulnerable people to boost the profits of already obscenely profitable pharmaceutical companies.

“The UK’s Labor government is sacrificing the health and wellbeing of its own population, and inevitably the most vulnerable within that population, to strike trade deals that will most benefit US businesses and the US economy. This is sacrificing population health for corporate wealth and runs counter to the government’s claim to do what is best for the British people,” he added.

These words were made last year by Nice’s then-CEO, Dr. It echoes the concerns expressed by Samantha Roberts. “Taxpayers only have a certain amount of money. If you spend more money on medicines, something else is given up. It could be a hip replacement, it could be a nurse,” he warned.

The Department of Health and Social Care denied Nice’s freedom would be at risk. “There is a revolution taking place in medical science and the Secretary of State is determined to secure the fruits of this revolution for many, not just those who can afford to pay,” a spokesman said.

“We have taken action to make it easier to bring innovative medicines to the NHS, meaning thousands of patients will get better access to life-changing treatments, including the recent approval of a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12.”

“Nice’s independence is maintained. He will continue, as always, to keep his guidance and advice completely free of political interference, balancing the clinical effectiveness of treatment with the cost to ensure taxpayers get a good deal.”

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) also defended the change.

An ABPI spokesman said: “This change does not give any government minister the power to tell Nice what decisions it should make. However, it makes clear that the government is responsible for setting the parameters within which Nice will operate. Nice’s independence is protected and this is critically important.”