HC Deb 25 November 1983 vol 49 cc339-40W
Mr. Chapman

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment has been made of introducing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis as an alternative to the use of kidney machines wherever practical from considerations of (a) the comparative costs in both capital outlay and annual running costs, (b) advantages of convenience to patients and (c) doctors', nurses', and other staff time.

Mr. John Patten

As in any field of medicine, there is wide discussion in professional circles about the relative merits of different methods of treatment. The choice between them remains a clinical decision for the doctors concerned, who will certainly be aware of the considerations to which my hon. Friend refers.

Ranges of costs for different methods of treatment were estimated from a survey conducted by the Department in three hospitals in 1981 and were given by my hon. Friend the Member of Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg) in his reply to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 2 March.—[Vol. 38, c. 159.61.] These estimates cover the costs of staffing and consumables; the value of machines, equipment and home conversions expressed on an annual basis; and average costs incurred as a result of medical complications. The figures revalued to current prices are as follows:

Successful transplant 5,600–6,450 in first year;
annual maintenance 1,550–1,850

Hospital haemodialysis 12,550–15,300
Home dialysis 7,950–9,750
Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) 8,450–11,000
The reliability of the figure for CAPD is doubtful because it was based on a small number of patients at a time when rates of complication may have been higher than those now being experienced.