Sex and drugs and rock ‘n Roll (without the sex…)

The Mail on Sunday reports on drug firms who have dramatically increased their prices to the NHS over the last couple of years; not for incredible, leading edge products but for fairly standard long-standing drugs.

"In June  2008, the cost to the NHS of a packet of 10mg pills was £5. Today, the NHS is paying £44.40 for the same course."

I'm surprised because I always had the impression that Pharma procurement was pretty competent in Health.  However, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) who were responsible for drugs procurement got closed down a couple  of years ago.  Many of the non health specific categories were transferred to OGC Buying Solutions, but I believe Pharma was retained in the Department of Health.

Of course I have no idea whether this issue is 'real', but knowing PASA, I find it hard to believe they would have allowed the sort of sort of increases the Mail report.  This would seem to be pretty basic contract management / cost control stuff; not even particularly sophisticated negotiation with a monopoly supplier (which is something that the NHS does face in its Pharma procurement).

So has some key capability been lost in the organisational change I wonder?  Anyone from DH / ex PASA like to comment?

Yes, I hear you saying, but, given you have already excused yourself from the 'sex',  what about the Rock 'n Roll? Well, I took my nephew to the Lovebox Festival on Friday for his first taste of Festival madness, and my very brief review goes as follows: Maccabees - great as expected; Bombay Bicycle Club- good but maybe a little laid back; Mystery Jets - brilliant, becoming a very 'serious' band in the best sense of the word; Chew Lips - a total and very pleasant surprise and one of the most charismatic lead singers I've seen in quite a while; Ellie Goulding - probably a sweet girl, good to her parents, would go down well at the local singer-songwriter evening in the pub ... but way out of her depth on the main stage.

Will that do?

Share on Procurious

Voices (2)

  1. Peter Smith:

    I have no affection of any sort for the Mail and that’s a very interesting link B&T (if I may call yout that) but – and its been a long day – I have to say I didn’t fully understand it! Seriously, any chance you could explain what it means and how that relates to the Mail distorting the facts? I would feature that as a new post – we are only interested in the procurement truth here, there is no ‘political’ angle so would like to correct things if it was not accurate in the first place.

  2. bitter and twisted:

    You believe the MAIL?

    I dont think the facts support the article

Discuss this:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.