Elderly to be denied new drug treatments

Have you got a link to this Anno?

There might be concerns about how elderly and which drugs. [trying to give the benefit of the doubt without jumping in with both feet icon]

I googled and 3 lots of DM reports came up, one is from 1 day ago, but they seem to recycle their scare-mongering on an annual basis, I've done a cut and paste below:

NHS denies the elderly life-saving treatment for cancer: Postcode ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../NHS-denies-elderly-life-saving-treatment-cancer-P...
1 Sep 2013 - The elderly are being denied life-saving operations in a postcode lottery ..... of African wildlife, spa treatment rooms - and yours for £15k a night!
Sentenced to death for being old: The NHS denies life-saving ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-savin...‎
6 Apr 2012 - The charity estimates that if the treatment of older patients matched that on offer in the U.S., as many as 14,000 lives could be saved every year. ..... Karren Brady, 44, pictured in London last night, says going back to work ...
Elderly may be denied life-saving medicine under plans to change ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Elderly-denied-life-saving-medicine-plans-change-...
1 day ago - 'In making recommendations about which treatments to recommend for use in the NHS, Nice does not and will not make decisions based on ...

Thought it might be scare-mongering.

What is classed officially as "elderly?"

Well I can only speak for my own family and can honestly say that I have seen no evidence whatsoever of either my mum or my grandma being denied any kind of drug/operation/procedure on age grounds. My mum has taken numerous (cancer) drugs over the years, some of which I know are extremely expensive. Likewise my grandma always gets the very best of care from both her GP and the various hospitals she attends where she is treat like some kind of superstar and revels in the attention her advancing age gives her.

Health stories in the press are often distorted and alarmist - specially designed to put up the blood pressure.
I think this principle is not unreasonable at all:
"it's about your capacity to benefit from the treatments that we're looking at." as it says in the link.
If someone is very old and has multiple health problems and very poor quality of life do we really think that doctors should feel obliged (as they currently do) to give them the very latest (and usually therefore very expensive) treatment Even if it will only at best buy them six more months of pain and suffering?

www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/features/WillElderlyPatientsMissOutOnNewDrugs.jsp

Apologies - I thought I had included the link last night. It wasn't the DM for a change.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/new-nhs-drugs-policy-could-see-elderly-denied-treatment-9050297.html

JessM, thanks for the link, I agree that the principle is not unreasonable. Like others on here, my own experience, and that of close friends and family simply doesn't suggest that older people are being denied appropriate treatment.

And what about all we have contributed to the country, economically, socially, financially (50 plus year's of paying taxes and still paying)? Doesthat count for nothing?

My MIL's sister (80) recently had 7 rounds of chemotherapy and then died. She had a long list of other health problems and recently lost her husband. Are we seriously suggesting that after the failure of a round or two of chemo she should have been given he latest experimental anti-cancer drug at huge cost and with the possibility of extending her life just a few miserable months?
If, on the other hand if a young mum who was otherwise fit was in the same position re a cancer I would be happy that she should have the chance a few more months with her family.

JessM, I'm with you all the way.

Firstly, it's not NICE who have instigated this, it's the Department of Health.
Secondly, it depends how you interpret 'wider societal benefits'.
I don't think it should be taken to mean that the old person is contributing economically to society by being in paid employment, or looking after grandchildren, or caring for a spouse or partner.
I think it's a wider interpretation than that.
I think it means that the question is whether longterm there is less cost to society by providing the treatment than not providing it.
My MiL is a good example. She has wet macular degeneration but has have several lucentis injections which have not only saved her sight, but have meant that she can continue at 92 to live independently.
Although the lucentis is very expensive, it costs a lot less than providing social care would.

Good point JaneA is the lucentis one of these cell replacement treatments?

Had to look that one up nellie.
This is from Wikipedia :

Ranibizumab (trade name Lucentis) is a monoclonal antibody fragment (Fab) derived from the same parent mouse antibody as bevacizumab (Avastin). It is much smaller than the parent molecule and has been affinity matured to provide stronger binding to VEGF-A. It is an anti-angiogenic that has been approved to treat the "wet" type of age-related macular degeneration (AMD, also ARMD), a common form of age-related vision loss.

MiL lives about a mile from Addenbrookes and she knows she's very fortunate. I think especially in the early days, there was a bit if a postcode lottery, but that's inevitable when new treatments are being introduced.

I have a friend, aged 70, who is high on an liver transplant list. They otherwise have no health problems and come from a long-lived family. They could have 10 or 20 years of useful and enjoyable life ahead of them. Their liver damage is not alcohol related. Should a younger person, even with a family, whose liver disease is the result of heavy drinking, the George Best scenario, automatically get preference?

FlicketyB A good point. In my view no!

I would suggest for discussion that if someone who's liver damage is due to alcoholism fails to stop drinking they should not be given any priority for a liver transplant .

It is possible to test if someone is using alcohol and how long it might be since they stopped.

Is it right to spend vast sums of money and precious rare resources on someone who has persistently failed to end the behaviour that has caused the health crisis.

This is not just retributive. To continue drinking is such a strong contraindication to a liver transplant ever succeeding that this restriction has to be considered or the precious donated liver would be wasted.

I keep reading on GN about how much life expectation we over 70s have, 20 years, 25 years.
Its ridiculous. I am 75 and don't expect these number of years. I live for the day. The quality of life declines with age and it is reasonable that life saving drugs should be invested on the young in society. How much NI did we pay? not enough to pay for health treatment these days.
As for the 7 rounds of chemo. My friend is a GP and she says if one round hasn't heLped then a perhaps a second but its better to leave it then and not ruin the health that one still has.
Face up to the fact that life is not forever! It improves the quality of life no end.

I'm not sure what either of you means by 'rounds of chemo'. Do you mean a courses of treatment, or a single treatment?

courses of treatment say over 8 - 12 weeks. Chemo is to prevent the cancer from spreading or that the cancer goes inot remission, and most doctors would admit that if two courses of treatment have not prevented new cancers forming, then there is no reason to suffer a third or fourth, completely ruining the immune system.
A terrible decision I have to admit.
I know several doctors, in the family and at bridge club and they just shake their heads when they hear of people starting a third or a fourth course of chemo. One died of cancer and refused chemo altogether.

MargaretX makes a good point about the quality, rather than just the quantity of life any of us can hope for. I also agree with Flick and Nellie about liver transplants in relation to age, general health and alcohol dependence

Courses of treatment with gaps in between I believe ana though this is not first hand. Certainly went on a long time.
And this guideline is only for new fancy drugs like the Lucentis. Monoclonal antibodies are very clever specific targeted antibodies, each one the result of many years of careful research. Typical of the new wave of drug treatments.
Probably the money should be going to look for new antibiotics because antibiotic resistant bacteria are going to start killing off significant numbers of people one of these decades. If alternatives are not found we may see life expectancy rises go into reverse.

It rather depends on the cancer MargaretX My DH has Multiple Myeloma, which is basically incurable. The protocol is therefore to gain remission through chemotherapy, changing the drugs used as they become ineffective. Over the last three and a half years he has had 4 month's chemo followed by a stem cell transplant and after two and a half year's remission he has relapsed and started on a different drug combination. The new drug he is taking is frighteningly expensive, but the consultant had no hesitation in requesting it because he considered it to be the most suitable. The treatment for myeloma is to have as many courses of chemo as it takes to keep it under control. Some people have survived for many years with combinations of different drugs and transplants. There is certainly no set limit for the amount of chemo you should have and so far no one has quibbled about DH being over 65.
Our GP has a simple rule when prescribing. He says "There is an expensive drug or a cheap alternative that isn't as good - which one do you think the Prime Minister would have?"

What a gruelling regime that sounds, Deeda. You and your DH have my sympathy, although it's good that your GP is so positive!