Bad AIDS court thing

[dantes]

NAT v NHS. The NHS claimed it didn't have the authority to treat HIV using preventative measures, because reasons. Yes, the fuck? They advanced this idea to the court, they lost. So now they need to decide to tell gays that we don't want to spend money to save you, so go die. Wonderful. At least the lawyers turned in a decent income from this stupid waste of court time.

The short stupid version telling the idiot public it will cost them £400 per gay per month: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36946000

The actual version: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2005.html

This Claim is brought by a charity which specialises in achieving the best policy for treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS, the National Aids Trust ("NAT"). The challenge is to a decision of the Defendant, NHS England, to refuse to consider in its commissioning process an anti-retroviral drug to be used on a preventative basis for those at high risk of contracting AIDS. The treatment is known as "PrEP". The charity argues that both medically and economically the case for NHS England to commission the drugs for this prophylactic treatment is overwhelming and indeed there has been no suggestion from NHS England that this is not the case. A quick comparison of the cost of treating HIV related infections across a person's lifetime, compared to the relative cost of providing drugs on a prophylactic basis, shows that the savings from PrEP may be considerable. In these budgetary constrained times, when there is an ever increased focus on preventative medicine as a means of curbing future costs, the policy logic appears unassailable and, once again, it is said that there is no serious demur to this proposition from NHS England.

Judges are not mathematicians capable of solving dynamic equations. The hospitals are at maximum capacity, anything the NHS save on HIV will immediately be used up on the next illness on the list. So their cash outflow isn't going to reduce. All that will happen is someone else will use the HIV cash who wasn't using it before, and they'll now also have a bunch of gays asking for more cash on top.

Proceedings in this claim were served on the Secretary of State for Health. The Secretary of State for Health has written to the Court indicating that he does not intend to file an Acknowledgement of Service nor make submissions in the proceedings. He has explained that he intends to remain "neutral" in the dispute. However the position of the Secretary of State is important in understanding the issues arising, not least because the Secretary of State provides to NHS England an "annual mandate" ("the Mandate") setting out the objectives which NHS England is required to pursue.

Hhahahahaha Jeremy Hunt truly is a most cowardly cunt. God forbid he loses the gay vote.

I should refer briefly to an argument that lurked only marginally below the surface of the oral and written submissions of all parties. All parties fully appreciate that the case has wide budgetary ramifications. NAT is concerned that if local authorities have the sole duty and power to provide for preventative HIV treatment they will not be able to afford to commission PrEP and, moreover, given the breadth of their powers (see paragraph [56(b)] above) they might lawfully be able not to provide PrEP. The LGA makes the same point. I have set out at paragraph [16] above the submission of the LGA in this regard. NHS England is also concerned at the budgeting implications of the issue and recognises that all such issues involve the making of "hard" decisions. It argued that since the local authorities had (on its argument) the duty to make preventative treatment (such as PrEP) available it was the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure adequate funding. Budgetary constraints are or may be transient and relative. They do not in my view provide guidance as to the proper construction of the legislation. The task of the Court is to interpret the enactments according to the intent of Parliament. If this gives rise to unexpected financial ramifications then this is for the Government to resolve and this might include Parliament amending the legislation. But prima facie this is not a factor which can guide the proper interpretation of the Act and it is not something I have taken into account. In relation to this particular topic I emphasise one point which should, in any event be obvious. The determination of the scope in law of the duty and powers of NHS England is not an indication of how those powers will be exercised to secure fulfilment of the duty. The NHSA 2006 confers upon NHS England what might fairly be described as a broad discretion as to how it exercises its powers to achieve its target duties and in this connection the manner in which it exercises its judgment to achieve the most effective use of scarce financial resources is legitimately a matter calling for the exercise of judgment. The availability of resources is thus relevant at this stage; but not at the a priori stage of interpretation of the scope in law of that power and duty, which is what this case is about.

Hahah I like judges, they're almost as arrogant and powerful as I am.

I therefore conclude as follows. First, the power of NHS England includes commissioning for preventative purposes and this includes for HIV related drugs. Second, in the alternative even if NHS England does not have a power to commission on a preventative basis the commissioning of PrEP is to be treated in the same way as the commissioning of PEP, i.e. both are provided on the basis that the patient is assumed to be infected. Third, in the further alternative the commissioning of PrEP is within the power of NHS England under Section 2 NHSA 2006, even if properly analysed it is a preventative treatment.

No shit. The NHS are quite stupid.

 

[Spionkop69]

You must log in or register to view this reply.

 

[Portly]

You must log in or register to view this reply.

 

[dantes]

You must log in or register to view this reply.