Experts tasked with reviewing access to new medicines have rejected calls for a cancer drugs fund.
Professor Philip Routledge and Professor Charles Swainson both warned against singling out cancer from other diseases and conditions, after being asked about concerns over access to drugs to treat the disease.
During an evidence session at Holyrood's Health Committee in which the professors answered questions about their review, Conservative MSP Nanette Milne asked about the prospect of a cancer drugs fund.
Prof Routledge, of Cardiff University, told her: "I would be loathe to single cancer out from other conditions which shorten life or reduce the quality of life significantly."
Former NHS Lothian medical director Prof Swainson agreed, saying: "There was no evidence presented to me that demonstrated that drugs for cancer are treated any differently from other drugs in the decision making by Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) or indeed in the decision making by Individual Patient Treatment Requests (IPTRs)."
Around two-thirds of all IPTRs are successful, the same proportion accepted for patients with cancer, Prof Swainson said.
Health Secretary Alex Neil asked the professors to review access to new medicines last November after concerns were raised by some doctors, charities and patients.
The academics looked at both the SMC, which appraises and recommends new medicines, and the IPTR system which patients can use to try to get drugs not approved by the SMC.
The professors made a number of recommendations including more public involvement and transparency in the process.
Prof Routledge said: "My conclusion is that the process which Scotland uses to appraise new drugs is a very good one, and one which Scotland should be proud of. My recommendations relate largely to trying to increase the transparency of the process so that all those involved in the process ... are able to see the qualities of the process that Scotland uses."
Prof Swainson said: "Many of my recommendations are about tightening up and improving on what is there already, and essentially asking for more transparency and public reporting in these important systems."
Labour MSP Dr Richard Simpson said he is disappointed that the review recommendations were not more radical in terms of improving the structures of the system.
Only 74% of drugs approved by the SMC are then agreed for inclusion by the area drug and therapeutic committees (ADTCs), meaning availability can vary across the country from one health board to another, he said.
"I think the public cannot understand that when the SMC recommends a drug for general use or for restricted use, it is not then implemented across the whole of Scotland," Dr Simpson said.
The committees appear to be "second-guessing" the SMC with different restrictions, Dr Simpson said.
Prof Swainson said: "I have a great deal of sympathy with your view. We could certainly have a more robust way of dealing those in a more uniform fashion.
"I didn't recommend that we should only have one ADTC but I think for the introduction of specialist medicines that it would be a very good idea. The gain would be that everyone understood how the drug was to be introduced and patients in Scotland would benefit in a more uniform format."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article