Herbal medicines - because the government thinks you're stupid

David Colquhoun asks "Why does the MHRA refuse to label herbal products honestly?"

Basically the EU regulations state that you must have the following on the label of a herbal remedy:

"Traditional herbal medicinal product for use in [insert baseless medical claim here] exclusively based upon long-standing use."

And you also get a lovely little kitemark to show that the MHRA has approved your drug:

They might be broadly safe and manufactured to certain minimum standards but the MHRA refuse to have any requirement to mention on the label that there isn't actually any evidence that this or that herbal remedy can do what the label claims, or even to mention that the evidence shows that it doesn't work at all. And then they boast about how:

"The growth of the THR scheme means that consumers will have access to a wide choice of over-the-counter herbal medicines made to assured standards.

"The current signs are that the market will be lively and competitive. The key difference for consumers is that in future they will be in the driving seat and able to make an informed choice when they wish to use these medicines."

This government (and the last one) and the MHRA think you're stupid. They don't want you to know that these herbal drugs don't work because then you might not buy them. And that would upset their friends in the multibillion pound herbal supplement industry. Because ensuring a 'lively and competitive' market in useless drugs is more important than having a real informed choice. It's just the same story at home as selling useless dowsing rods as explosive detectors abroad.

Sharing the risk - creaming the profits

The King's Fund demonstrate their true colours again, according to the GP magazine 'Pulse':

The King’s Fund has called for entire care pathways to be outsourced to private firms, claiming GPs do not have the time to make the required service re-design in primary care demanded by the NHS reforms.

What I don't understand is what all this talk of 'risk sharing', e.g.

‘GPs can set the standards but consortia will ultimately want to commission organisations to take on the risk.’

...a risk sharing model which would see private firms take on service re-design and practice performance management in return for receiving financial incentives

Now I understand the concept of paying someone for a service, say 'service re-design' or 'practice performance management' but what does it mean to 'share the risk'? It sounds rather asymmetrical, as if you pay a company to take on service commissioning and if it goes badly, well hard luck, you've already paid them, and if it goes well they get a nice big slice of 'performance bonus' to ice the cake - 'heads I win, tails you lose' - and that model's never gone wrong before, and certainly not in the NHS. Good job there will be no financial incentives or conflicts of interest to motivate GPs to adopt that model.

Of course I have absolutely no idea what these ‘integrated pathway hubs’ even mean:

...musculoskeletal, respiratory, and frail and elderly care the first three pathways lined up to go out to tender.

Does this mean that GPs will no longer be required to know any respiratory or musculoskeletal medicine, or to deal with older patients? The patients will refer themselves to the right 'pathway' presumably ('I've got pain in my chest, I guess that's my lungs, better go to the respiratory pathway hub').

One wonders how efficient it will seem when all the respiratory or elderly care outpatient work is taken away from the general hospital to be focused in the 'integrated pathway hub' - when suddenly the acute hospital has no money to keep a respiratory team going, no one to put in chest drains, no one to give expert opinion on difficult chest cases - instead they're having to purchase services from these private providers under their 'service level agreement'. What is the ultimate goal - A&E as a glorified NHS call centre referring you to this or that private company and 'care pathway'? Each care pathway 'integrated' with itself but absolutely no flexibility to cover the messy multiple comorbidities that cross the individual pathway boundaries and make up the real cases seen in everyday medicine. Still, at least it will save money.

Or is it that a 'care pathway' in this case is just one of those referral centres we've seen implemented in areas like musculoskeletal medicine? Staffed with clerical drones who click 'computer says no' and sends the referral back to the GP to ask a physiotherapist to waste their time looking at for six weeks before these moronic box-ticking gate keepers will approve the referral being sent back again - presumably hoping the patient has died or given up in the mean time. For those interested it looks like these care pathways will be like this sort of thing - if my experience is anything to go by they will be vague, inflexible, allow referral centre drones to bounce back anything remotely complicated (because they don't know what the words mean and thus assume it doesn't matter) and ultimately end up with enormously wasted time and duplicated effort. Vive la Revolution!

The future of the NHS

Duck on the Badscience forums asked me to blog my concerns about the future of the NHS and how what we are about to see is wholesale privatisation.

What I was saying there is that GPs don't have the time, resources, or infrastructure to suddenly take over all the functions of PCTs next year while carrying on with their day jobs. So, naturally, they will be looking to contract out the commissioning function. But this is just one aspect of the overarching drive towards privatisation.

Something worth remembering when considering GP consortia is that these are consortia of GP practices, not individual GPs. And GP practices are no longer partnerships of equals but increasingly becoming small businesses which differ from the larger healthcare companies purely in size. The last Labour government introduced the idea that GP practices were not partnerships of GPs by removing the need for a certain number of GP partners for a given number of patients (or rather a given amount of money). Instead they were to be treated as small businesses contracted to provide GP services. This has lead to GP services being increasingly provided by salaried GPs (who are usually more recently qualified GPs) employed by the GP practices which are owned by GP partners (who are usually older GPs). Since these changes were brought in the majority of jobs available for newly qualified GPs are salaried positions and not partnerships.

So general practice has moved from being an ostensibly private but effectively collectivised system of equals (at least as far as medical staff go, the position of ancillary staff was different) to become a business like any other - the older generation of GPs have taken advantage of the new rules to become small businessmen increasingly acting as employers and screwing profit out of employees rather than acting as traditional family doctors while the newer generation of GPs become wage slaves. It won't be long before the traditional GP practice disappears (as the old partners retire and sell on their stake in the small business they own) as they are swallowed up by larger healthcare businesses - and then who is going to control the NHS budget? It won't be the workaday GPs who will just be employees of these big companies. **Poof** de facto privatisation.

The words of Liz Kendall (Labour) from the Commons debate on the upcoming NHS cluster-fuck (via Dr Grumble):

Our health and our NHS are not the same as gas, electricity or the railway. That the Secretary of State believes that they are shows how dangerously out of touch he is. What is the likely result? GPs will be forced to put local services out to tender even if they are delivering good quality care that patients choose and like; hospitals and community services will be pitted against one another when they should work together in patients’ interests; care, which as many hon. Members have said is vital as our population ages and there is an increase in long-term conditions, will become more and not less fragmented; the financial stability of local hospitals will be put at risk, and they will have no ability to manage the consequences of choice and competition in the system; and the whole system will be tied up in the costs of red tape, as GPs and hospitals employ an army of lawyers and accountants to sign contracts and fight the threat of legal challenge, huge fines and the potential of being sued. Let us also be clear that the Bill gives Monitor the same functions as the Office of Fair Trading, so it can fine organisations up to 10% of their turnover.

The more we see of the Bill, the more the truth becomes clear. The Secretary of State says that he wants clinicians to be more involved, and “no decision about me without me” for patients, but when the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association or anyone else tells him that he should stop, think again and halt his reckless NHS plans, he refuses to listen. When the Alzheimer’s Society, the Stroke Association and Rethink tell him that his proposals will not give patients a stronger voice and improve public accountability, he simply tells them that they are wrong. When health experts such as the King’s Fund warn that driving competition in every part of the NHS will make it more difficult to commission the services that best serve patients’ interests, he simply puts his fingers in his ears and walks away. What makes this Secretary of State think that he is right when professional bodies and patient groups know that he is wrong?

Doctors and nurses do not support the Government’s plan, patients do not want it, some Conservative Back Benchers and members of the Cabinet do not like it, and the Liberal Democrats hate it. They had the sense last Saturday to see what the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) called the potential catastrophe as far as the future of the NHS is concerned, and to ask for amendments to the Bill. I hope they have the sense to join us in the Lobby tonight.

NICE infiltrated by Berties

As they say on teh interwebs, quoted for truth:

First the MHRA lets down the public by allowing deceptive labelling of sugar pills (see here, and this this blog). Now it is the turn of NICE to betray its own principles.
...
If NICE does not reconsider this guidance, it is hard to see how it can be taken seriously in the future...

David Colquhoun on NICE, low back pain, and the Woo-sters here, here, and here.

I think D^2 has an interesting, but ultimately flawed take on it:

Similarly, in the early days of the evidence-based medicine movement, when they were the Young Turks or punk rockers, shaking up a complacent medical establishment that had got out of touch with the cutting edge of medical research, they had the potential to do a lot of good. But now they are the establishment, and as a result of that, the very evidence that they rely on, is shaped by the fact that it needs to appeal to them. The fact that a movement which begun by trying to bring science back into medicine, has now ended up putting its imprimateur on some obvious pseudoscience, ought to worry us more than it does, because this is only the most obvious manifestation of the general problem.

I think he is wrong here, in fact I'm not even sure exactly what he's trying to say is the institutional weakness of Evidence Based Medicine - the strength of EBM is that it has relatively objective and impartial methods to decide questions like this - which is why this failure to adhere to those standards has caused such outrage.

Also, see the guy in the comments lamenting that these EBM enthusiasts have no way to combine data from multiple trials and other misapprehensions.

Grow your own drugs

No, not the good kind, there is a new TV series being heavily trailed, by that title:

...James Wong, a 27-year-old ethnobotanist (a scientist who studies how people use plants), wants to change our minds. He passionately believes that safe, natural remedies can be made from the everyday plants you find in hedgerows, the back garden or local garden centres.

...In Malaysia, where Wong grew up, everyone treated themselves with natural remedies. Food, too, was used as medicine...

The problem, Wong believes, is that there's a big cultural dividing line between conventional medicine, which is thought of as effective, proven and serious, and herbal medicine, which has the reputation of being a bit flaky.

But, as Wong says, up to 50 per cent of over-the-counter medicines are based on chemicals that were first isolated from plants. "Aspirin, for example, is made from the same chemicals that were first isolated from willow, which has been used for thousands of years as a painkiller.

...Wong, who trained at the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, is quick to point out that the herbs and plants he recommends all have a long history of use and no record of toxicity.

So, presumably aspirin, which is derived from plants after all, has 'no record of toxicity'? This doesn't bode well.