NHS trust stops homeopathy funds
The onslaught against homeopathy in some circles continues, with the news that health bosses at West Kent primary care trust (PCT) have recommended that NHS funding for their patients treated at the Tunbridge Wells homeopathic hospital be withdrawn. The hospital, one of five NHS homeopathic hospitals in the UK, currently treats around 1,000 patients a year, at a cost to the PCT of £160,000.
Spending £160 of NHS money per patient per year might sound a lot, but in healthcare spending terms, my view is that it’s likely to be good value, especially given the results patients reported from the treatment at a sister NHS homeopathic hospital. In 2005, the BBC reported that a study at the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital showed that over 70% of patients with chronic diseases reported positive changes after treatment.
More than 6,500 patients (with complaints as diverse as eczema, menopause and arthritis) took part in the six-year study. The biggest improvements were reported in children - in 89% of the cases of under 16s with asthma improvement was reported. Of the group 75% felt ‘better’ or ‘much better’, as did 68% of eczema patients under 16. This study has been criticised by sceptics of homeopathy, who argued that there was no control group, and that the results depended on patients themselves reporting how they felt after treatment.
Bear in mind, too, that (from my experience of private practice) most of the patients reporting improvements in the Bristol study will be people who have already exhausted conventional treatment options, and who have turned to homeopathy because they haven’t found conventional treatments helpful, or because they’ve found the side-effects unacceptable.
As I highlighted in my blog for Brighton’s Argus newspaper, a 2006 report by the Board of Science of the British Medical Association estimated that 250,000 people a year in the UK are admitted to hospital suffering harmful effects after taking medical drugs, at a cost to the NHS of about £466,000,000 (yes, that’s £466million) per year. Contrast this with the £160,000 cost of providing West Kent with homeopathic treatment options, take into account the excellent results reported by homeopathic patients in Bristol, and it’s easy to wonder why it’s homeopathy in the dock rather than medical drugs.
The problem for the West Kent PCT is that homeopathy doesn’t fit the accepted medical paradigm. But, as so many patients clearly feel that homeopathy helps their symptoms, it seems crazy to try to argue that the improvements they report are wrong.
Tags: Evidence-based medicine, Homeopathy, NHS
October 1st, 2007 at 12:30 am
sad news for all homeopathic lovers !
October 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Pathetic excuse for debate. Goodness, a pound of cheese is less expensive than an automobile. I shall immediately sell my automobile and begin driving a pound of cheese to work.
The question is not cost but VALUE.
By the way, go do some research on “The Hawthorne Effect,” and you will learn that paying attention to patients will often result in their reporting an improvement in non-life threatening conditions.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
See http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/case/res_costeffective.html for a sound discussion of whether homeopathy is of value.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I think there are some sickness\problems which homeopathy really works while for other that needs a true medical attention after unsuccessfully trying the alternative way, where scientific studies has been done.
-Kris
October 25th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Dr Prabhat Tandon Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 12:30 am edit
sad news for all homeopathic lovers !
*********
Indeed, Dr Tandon. If you’re interested in homeopathy, I can recommend the following blog by a homeopath doctor working at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital:
http://heroesnotzombies.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/why-homeopathy-and-what-is-it-anyway/
October 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
It would be a grave mistake to withdraw money for homeopathic or alternative treatments. The debate seems to centre on a proven success vs. a successful treatment. Many arguments centre on issues such as cancer treatments and proving a drug works. Cancer is an area where there is a strong argument in favour of NOT using homeopathic or alternative treatment. However, that is not to say that there are not MANY conditions where homeopathic treatment or alternative treatment is far better than treating the symptoms with drugs or nothing at all. The point is, that many illnesses are not successfully treated with drugs - they address the symptom but not the illness. And if the argument centres around money and proven success - then we have money spent on breast enlargements (now be given on the NHS if one argues for negative psychological effects, as a 21 yr old girl successfully did in my area) - which is ludicrous. Yes, the enlargement ‘operation’ is successful it works but is it effective treatment? - nobody knows - some patients go on to want further enlargements or other cosmetic operations and some operations go wrong and some are happy. Are these operations based on sound research into the effect of breast size and psychological illness? How can the NHS justify spending money in these cases but not for example referring a woman to acupuncture (at a cost of about £30) for hormone imbalance which could prevent an operation or an asthmatic for allergy treatment? Using alternative medicines can reduce the cost to the NHS. Traditionally asthma sufferers have repeat prescriptions of at least £60.00 these drugs are for control and when they don’t work oral steroids (with all the dreadful side effects) are prescribed and there are hospital admissions - all cost the NHS money. There are successful allergy treatments which reduce the need for inhalers and alternative treatments to deal with other aspects of the condition which also reduce drug intake, prevent admissions and equip the patient with ways of dealing with stress caused by the condition. Treatment to reduce allergies is not within the NHS remit - instead drugs are prescribed antihistamines to reduce symptoms and as conditions worsen – drug intake increases. There are other ways to treat these types of conditions. The homeopathic hospital does have successful treatments for allergies and it also has successful treatments for dealing with stress a strong factor in many other conditions which are not served well by drugs. The treatment needed by some asthmatics, and other conditions which are vital to maintain a reasonable quality of life and it cannot be achieved by a doctor saying your condition is exacerbated by stress ’so reduce it’ or ‘you’ll have to take oral steroids’. These attempts to control conditions cost money and the patient’s quality of life is reduced yet the argument is its better than paying the homeopathic hospital to treat the condition, gain improvement both in quality of life and reducing the amount of drugs that need to be taken? This is ludicrous. Should someone with a condition which could be successfully treated by homeopathy be denied the chance to see if it works so that we can do more cosmetic operations? It seems to me that a sensible debate is needed here. I for one would prefer my money to go into the Homeopathic hospital and alternative medicine and use their expertise in treating conditions which are not well served by conventional medicines (and I am not suggesting asthmatics stop taking inhalers). This is not an all or nothing debate that is why the term complimentary therapy came into being. I would rather have 10 years allergy free by having desensitising injections paid for on the NHS than 10 years of fairly useless antihistamines which slightly reduce symptoms. The value issue is important - quality of life is important. Why should I have to pay for allergy treatment which greatly affects my quality of life? Why should that money be spent on operations / treatment which may not work and may not be necessary? Alternative therapies are very successful with some types of asthma, many allergies, hormone imbalance (acupuncture is very effective in many cases) and many other conditions and people suffering with these should get treatment under the NHS. Patients should be able to see if an alternative method prevents an operation or hospital admission. The argument that the NHS only uses medicine that works is flawed – it does not always work and sometimes operations are done knowing that in 5 years time the problem may come back. Why then are homeopathic and alternative therapies rejected because they are not proven to be 100% successful for all of the people? Why is operation preferable to treatment? It is the case that some alternative treatment works extremely effectively, and some doesn’t work for everyone – I would argue the same is true for hysterectomies, laser treatment of fibroids and many other types of operation. There are many areas of waste in the NHS which could benefit from alternative treatment.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:18 am
You’re right, Kris, that there is rarely just one solution that suits everyone. We often find that patients who come to the Phoenix clinic for help have already tried pretty much everything that conventional medicine has to offer for their complaint: it’s often a case of ‘tried everything else, try homeopathy’! Thanks for your posting.
Nicola, thank you for raising some very interesting questions that are well worthwhile asking, and I do so agree that access to homeopathy on the NHS should be widened rather than restricted, as seems to be happening.
You’ve probably seen recent media reports (like that in last weekend’s Observer newspaper) which patronisingly dismiss the good results that many millions of patients report experiencing while on homeopathic medicine.
While conventional medicine focuses solely on what can be explained, the risk is that a huge body of anecdotal evidence gets ignored or swept under the carpet as not fitting in with accepted scientific knowledge.
My view is that there are still things that work, that science cannot yet explain, and homeopathy’s clearly one of them!
Thank you for your posting!