A parliamentary bill blocked by pharmacy minister Alistair Burt would have increased patients’ access to “the right treatment at the right time”, a pharmacist and Conservative councillor has said.

The bill – which Mr Burt prevented MPs from voting on last week (November 6) – would have made the government responsible for ensuring that off-patent drugs are licensed for additional indications.

All pharmacists support changes that “enhance the availability of the right medication” for patients, contractor and West Berkshire Council deputy leader Graham Jones told C+D. The pharmacy minister needs to “quickly” suggest an alternative to the bill, he stressed.

Mr Burt prevented a parliamentary vote by speaking until the session had run out of time – a tactic known as filibustering – and argued that there is no need for the bill because prescribing drugs off-label is “part and parcel of normal, everyday clinical practice”.

The proposed changes to the law were “more likely to impede” access to medicines “than facilitate it”, he claimed.

"A step in the right direction"

However, Mr Jones said the bill was “definitely a step in the right direction”. “Any healthcare professional wants the widest choice available, so we’ve got to get to that position,” he added.

Labour MP for Torfaen Nick Thomas-Symonds, who prepared the bill, told parliament that doctors are wary of taking on the extra liability of prescribing drugs off-licence. There is also “no financial incentive” for pharmaceutical companies to seek new licences for off-patent drugs because a medicine’s value falls once its patent has expired.

“At the moment, [these drugs] can theoretically be prescribed off-label, but that simply does not happen consistently across different spheres of medicine or across the country,” Mr Thomas-Symonds told MPs.

Scottish National Party (SNP) MP and surgeon Philippa Whitford gave the example of simvastatin, which is “used for lowering cholesterol but has been shown to significantly reduce brain atrophy in patients with a certain type of multiple sclerosis”.

Mr Burt denied Labour MP Paul Flynn’s accusation that he was taking a “cruel and unfair stand” to “maximise [the pharmaceutical industry’s] profits and put patients last”.

The pharmacy minister also stressed that he would “not be performing my duty” if he allowed a bill he considered “wrong and potentially harmful” to be passed. “I will resist the bill today, but my advice to colleagues at the Department of Health will certainly reflect the mood of what has been said,” he added.

Watch the parliamentary debate here.
 

How could the bill have benefitted patients in your area?

We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information