£25,000 for Health Projects in the Developing World

NHS teams planning humanitarian work overseas can apply for grants of up to £3,000 from the BMA/RCN Humanitarian Fund from this week.

The total amount available for projects in 2010 will be £25,000 – comprising, £20,000from the BMA, and £5,000 from the Royal College of Nursing.

Last year, 29 grants were awarded from the Humanitarian Fund, which is administered by the BMA’s International Department.

Projects ranged from reducing infant deaths by training community health workers to deliver improved maternity care in Afghanistan to setting up a sustainable kidney transplant programme in Ghana.

Such projects can have lasting benefits. In Ghana, for example, a British team supported by the Humanitarian Fund have trained local surgeons and nephrologists with the aim of establishing a national kidney transplant service that will save many lives.

I am proud that the BMA funds such valuable work. I’m looking forward to reading about the next range of projects that will take place this year using the humanitarian fund.

NHS staff seeking funding for projects should apply to the BMA’s International Department at international.info@bma.org.uk

For more information, go to: http://www.bma.org.uk/international/international_development/humfund2010.jsp

Are we heading for a fairer funding system?

BMA Cymru Wales wants to know whether Wales gets enough money to meet its health needs.

Some politicians and academics say that the way Wales is funded is not fair. The so-called 'Barnett formula' allocates resources to Wales on population rather than a 'needs' basis. Put simply, we don't know whether we're getting the right amount of money.

I'm no financial expert, which is why I've welcomed the establishment of the Holtham Commission. I hope the Commission will allow us mere medics to obtain a very clear answer, to what seems a very simple question: Is Wales getting enough cash to meet its growing health needs?

Lucentis decision re-opens can of worms over NHS drug funding

The U-turn by NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) this week regarding the sight-saving drug Lucentis, returns us once again to the debate about what the NHS should and shouldn't be funding.

Lucentis is used to treat wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of sight loss in the UK.

But, in NICE's draft guidance last year it seemed to suggest a patient would need to lose their sight in one eye before the other could be treated with Lucentis. That has now changed, along with the introduction of a so-called "dose-capping system". The NHS will only fund 14 injections, with the cost of any more being met by the drug manufacturer.

It is still a costly course of treatment for the NHS. One Lucentis injection is £761.20, so the 14 injections being funded by the NHS equates to about £10,700.

This is money well spent, ensuring a loss of sight is avoided.

It has also ended the postcode lottery for patients in Wales, where some Local Health Boards were funding Lucentis and others weren't.

But where does that leave the NHS in terms of funding other "wonder" drugs?

How do you decide the cost "effectiveness" of such treatments?

We all know our health service doesn't have an endless pot of money, to be dipped into at a whim - which is why funding decisions must be transparent and clearly understood by clinicians and patients alike - based on evidence. It's also about the time the public is involved in the debate - after all it is our money!

But who has the guts to deny patients who've paid their National Insurance contributions all their lives, the treatment they need?

Perhaps none of our politicans have the appetite for that debate so soon after their summer holidays. But it is a debate they need to have.