§ 4. Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)What representations he has received concerning the funding of beta— interferon; and if he will make a statement. [57352]
§ The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)In the past 18 months, the Department's records show that we received 177 written representations from Members of Parliament, patients' groups and the public about the prescribing and funding of beta-interferon. I also met representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis Society in May.
Most health authorities now have procedures in place by which patients can receive treatment with beta-interferon. More generally, the Government want greater consistency in the delivery of cost-effective clinical services to patients, wherever they live.
§ Mr. BarnesIs the Minister aware that many MS patients in North Derbyshire have been prescribed beta-interferon, but have been lucky enough to receive it only if they are in the top eight on the list for treatment; have successfully pursued a court case, as one of my constituents has; or have decided to go private until the money runs out, such as Lesley Coombes of Ashover? Reassessments have been made to take off the list between 40 and 50 people who had hoped to receive beta-interferon. Is there not a case for earmarked resources for such authorities as North Derbyshire so that it can handle that massive problem?
§ Mr. MilburnI would be very glad to look into the individual case that my hon. Friend has highlighted, and I hope that North Derbyshire health authority feels in a rather more comfortable financial position as a result of today's extra allocation of resources. The extra £ 13.9 million that my hon. Friend's health authority will receive next year represents a cash increase of 6.6 per cent.
I know that my hon. Friend has not done so, but it is terribly important that no one raises any false expectations about the ability of beta-interferon or any other drug to combat an extremely debilitating and distressing condition. Beta-interferon is not a cure for multiple sclerosis; there is no cure for it. The evidence seems to suggest that some patients with a particular form of the disease can benefit briefly from the use of beta-interferon. Sadly, the evidence also suggests that those short-term improvements are not always sustained. The Department will be commissioning new research into the appropriate usage of beta-interferon, and we will be issuing new guidelines before too long to ensure greater national consistency in the uptake of the drug.
§ Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne)Given the inconsistent availability of beta-interferon, does the right hon. Gentleman continue to believe that there is no such thing as rationing in the national health service?
§ Mr. MilburnOpposition Members are in terrible danger of fermenting a crisis on this issue in the national health service. It is important to remember that for the vast majority of patients, in the vast majority of places, for the vast majority of the time, the vast majority of treatments are available on the national health service. Under this Government they will continue to be available on the NHS.
§ Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)I know that the Minister is aware of the work on beta-interferon by Professor Blumhardt in Nottingham. I understand that 132 the prism trials have now been published in The Lancet. I support the argument for earmarking funds, but will my right hon. Friend's assessment take account of the study in The Lancet? Will he introduce consistency to the prescribing process in decisions about whether beta-interferon is appropriate for MS sufferers?
§ Mr. MilburnI can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The products currently on the market are for a particular form of MS— the relapsing, remitting form— whereas the article in The Lancet is about the more serious, progressive form. The product to which my hon. Friend referred has not yet been licensed through the European procedures, let alone in this country. It is our intention to examine all beta-interferon products to achieve the greater national consistency in prescribing that all right hon. and hon. Members want.
§ Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)First, may I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) to the Dispatch Box for the first time? He has important responsibilities, and I assure him that we have every intention of keeping him as busy as possible.
Many people will question the Minister's answer to his hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and he did not answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). Will he admit that there is rationing in the national health service? There always has been, although the Secretary of State persistently refuses to admit that. The inconsistency in the availability of beta-interferon and many other inconsistent availabilities in the national health service prove that. If the Minister is not prepared to admit that there is rationing, there is no way that we can have a grown-up debate about the future of the health service. Will he admit it now?
§ Mr. MilburnI am not sure that grown-up debates and the hon. Gentleman are always as compatible as they should be. The real reason why the Opposition are seeking to foment a debate about rationing is not beta-interferon, but the Conservative party's failure to match our record levels of investment in the national health service. It is about time the Opposition came clean. If they are not prepared to match pound for pound the extra investment in the hon. Gentleman's health authority and others, they should list item by item, procedure by procedure and treatment by treatment, those patients who will lose out and will not now be treated on the NHS, and will be forced to go private. The difference between the hon. Gentleman's party and the Labour party is that we believe in treatment being available according to clinical need and not ability to pay.