Would you rather the NHS had a £1.75billion surplus or it provided new drugs people are being denied?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7584868.stm

Is it too simplistic to say that if the NHS has £1.75 billion surplus that it hasn't spent, NICE could perhaps consider re-evaluating the cost-effectiveness criteria by which it is decided whether the NHS can afford to provide certain drugs? I'm sure everyone would rather this surplus was spent on the kidney cancer, dementia and other drugs that have been reported as not being available to people over the past few weeks, than have it sit in the Treasury coffers.

Answer 1

the NHS has a finite amount of money (tax payers money) and there are so many drugs out there that they have to choose the right ones

its a difficult job but someone has to do it... i'm pretty sure nobody wants to work out the cost of medicine relative to the months extra life it provides but it has to be done otherwise the system falls apart

Answer 2

Despite Virginia Bottomley's best efforts to make it one in the 90's, the NHS was, is, and never will be, a profitable organization. I'd rather see the ludicrous top heavy management system overhauled first and foremost, but the insidious private perks creeping into the NHS (paying extra for a "private" room on a public ward etc) are almost as damaging. The surplus can always be reallocated, the doctors and nurses leaving in droves because of chronic mismanagement can't.

Answer 3

National Institute of Compulsory Euthanasia-NICE

We pay money all our lives for National Insurance to fund health care, only to be condemned to premature death, wheres the money gone?