BMJ fails to reflect all Risk-sharing Scheme comments in printed version
16 June 2010
The printed version of the BMJ (published 12 June) carries last week's web based articles on the Risk-sharing Scheme but unfortunately fails to include the comments from the Chair of the Scientific Advisory group.
Professor Richard Lilford from Birmingham has responded strongly to the assertions made by certain health economists in last Friday's BMJ.
In particular he rejects the suggestion that any advice that the Scientific Advisory Group have given is based on anything other than scientific rigour. He also challenges the claims by Raftery and McCabe (see links below) that decisions should be based on observational data after only two years.
This is an important point as some of the lay press coverage has appeared to question the original randomised controlled trials and thus the clinical efficacy of the drugs which is as Professor Lilford indicates is patently incorrect.
The MS Trust has supported the Department of Health (DH) Risk-sharing Scheme from the outset as it is, and remains, the legal framework for access to the licensed disease modifying drugs in the UK. Without the Scheme people with MS would be denied treatment and services would not have developed to their present state. Many people with MS have done extremely well on these drugs, and it is important that they remain available now and in the future.
BMJ articles:
- Professor Alastair Compston
Scheme has benefited patients - Professor George Ebers
Outcome measures were flawed - Professor Christopher McCabe
Continuing the multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme is unjustified - Professor James Raftery
Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure - Professor Neil Scolding
The multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme - Boggild M, Palace J, Ben-Shlomo Y, Bregenzer T, Dobson C, Gray R
Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: two year results of clinical cohort study with historical comparator - Professor Richard Lilford
Risk Sharing Scheme could not yield valid data after only two years follow up
