# C4 news - 7pm tonight



## shiv (Dec 15, 2010)

Just saw a preview in which it said they will be discussing insulin, pharmaceutical companies and prices. Could be interesting?


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

shiv said:


> Just saw a preview in which it said they will be discussing insulin, pharmaceutical companies and prices. Could be interesting?



Thanks for the heads up Shiv!


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

Ooh thanks Shiv.

I saw on the BBC news site that they are discussing ways to cut costs. I'm a bit worried.


----------



## Robster65 (Dec 15, 2010)

They'll have us back on pig and horse insulin before long. But we'll need to catch one first 

Rob


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

Robster65 said:


> They'll have us back on pig and horse insulin before long. But we'll need to catch one first
> 
> Rob



They'll get those on Diet and Exercise to catch the pigs for us, as part of a govt.funded exercise programme. Those on metformin can pay back society by propelling wind turbines.


----------



## lucy123 (Dec 15, 2010)

That is funny Alan!
Please don;t shout too loudly re chasing the pigs!


----------



## mimms2 (Dec 15, 2010)

oohh I shall tune in lol


----------



## Donald (Dec 15, 2010)

*channel 4 news insulin*

This is on the channel 4 news that started at 7  till 18:55 it is on sometime in that time 



Diabetes: the insulin investigation
While on the subject of health, I should mention that later in the programme we have a completely sensational film about diabetes and the high cost of a new form of insulin. 
Diabetes already costs the NHS ?9bn a year - our investigation has discovered that these new insulins - now used by millions in the UK - only offer minor benefits compared to older versions. Meanwhile they are costing us tens of millions extra annually. 

The film exposes what some see as an attempt by big pharmaceuticals to transfer the world's diabetes sufferers onto an insulin which has only modest advantages for most patients - but is very profitable for the companies who make it.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

Thanks Donald, it will be interesting to see how well-researched this is, or if it is making assumptions about the benefits of modern insulins, particularly on lifestyle. I know in the US there are some very cheap insulins that you can buy from Walmart, but the majority of people would not use them unless they really had to, like no insurance etc. (Novolin-N and R, I believe they are called).


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

Northe, do you know which insulin they are referring to?


----------



## Robster65 (Dec 15, 2010)

Ouch. Witch hunt on diabetics by the sound of it. USe us as scapegoats so the NHS can carry on funding non-diabetics for whatever non-diabetics have (I can't imagine what people would want, if not insulin ).

Rob


----------



## Hazel (Dec 15, 2010)

you can check it out on channel 4 news web site


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

Well, I'm already angry. They have thrown so many figures around at the beginning - many of which are irrelevant to the insulin question.


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

If they actually told people it's possible to lower BG by lowering the amount of carbs you eat, people might not go on insulin so soon.


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

Is it analogue insulin that reduces number of hypos? I'm getting confused


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

I want to know where this big white room is where we are supposed to be going to inject!


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

Northerner said:


> I want to know where this big white room is where we are supposed to be going to inject!



What's this? didn't see it...


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

Well, I'm pretty appalled by yet another guilt trip we are all beingtaken on. They start off by saying that ?1m an hour goes on diabetes, 2.8m have it, ?9billion  a year...then conveniently forget to state that, of the 2.8m with it, a much smaller percentage use it, and that the savings might equate to ?250m over 5 years. So, out of ?9b, the saving might be ?50m? All this 'diabetes is costing us...' - read as 'you diabetics are costing the rest of us...'

Also, 90,000 out of 2.8m using the old type, does that equate to those kinds of savings?

They kept showing people injecting, but completely omitted to talk about Type 1, just dropping in the occasional Type 2.

I know that big pharma make lots of money from drugs, but it's hardly just insulin that's responsible for their vast profits. I also hated this idea that you shouldn't spend more just to give people a better life - calling it 'marginal in most'. 

I thought it was sensationalist and confused, and generally very anti-diabetic - not only do we bring it on ourselves, but we are using money that can be spent on more public-friendly diseases that people can't help getting...


----------



## Estellaa (Dec 15, 2010)

i feel like going to channel four and punching someone, what aload of rubbish to say ??
perhaps they should try living in our shoes and see what it's like? perhaps they would then reconsider what stupid things they are saying.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 15, 2010)

All I know is I would be up for any kind of insulin that was cheaper

I am against lining the pockets of the giant pharmaceutical companies.

Finding out it costs more than it should will do us no favours.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

Hazel said:


> All I know is I would be up for any kind of insulin that was cheaper
> 
> I am against lining the pockets of the giant pharmaceutical companies.
> 
> Finding out it costs more than it should will do us no favours.



I do agree with you Hazel, but I think it laid the stress far too much on insulin as a treatment for diabetes, whereas for the vast majority it's more likely to be some other aspect of treatment that is costing far more due to much greater numbers using it. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the relative annual costs of different treatments.

edit: just listened back a bit and out of the 9bn, 300m is spent on insulin. So what other treatments are costing the other ?8,700,000,000?


----------



## rachelha (Dec 15, 2010)

This article is on the channel 4 website.  They mention NPH, not an insulin I have heard of

http://www.channel4.com/news/nhs-wastes-tens-of-millions-on-expensive-diabetes-drugs


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

rachelha said:


> This article is on the channel 4 website.  They mention NPH, not an insulin I have heard of
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/news/nhs-wastes-tens-of-millions-on-expensive-diabetes-drugs



That's the old river trout insulin - haven't you seen today's Advent Calendar picture?  Neutral Protamine Hagedorn

http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showpost.php?p=202997&postcount=83


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

I dont get this:



> Now a joint investigation by Channel 4 News and BMJ (British Medical Journal) estimates that the more expensive type of insulins for people with Type 2 diabetes has cost the NHS tens of millions extra over the past five years.



Even more Type 1s are using analogue insulin, so why are they talking about Type 2s?


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

katie said:


> I dont get this:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more Type 1s are using analogue insulin, so why are they talking about Type 2s?



Perhaps they provide greater benefits for type 1s over a type 2 just on a basal insulin? Not sure really. Maybe because they thought they could blame Type2s like large sections of the media and so they were a fair target for wasting NHS money in this way.  I still got the impression I was being made to feel rather selfish for using more expensive insulin just for the sake of better control.


----------



## bev (Dec 15, 2010)

I only saw a couple of minutes of this - but from what I saw it seemed to be saying that diabetics are a burden and they should accept cheap insulin to save the NHS money - I didnt see any facts or figures regarding which insulin is actually better for a diabetic - it all seemed to be down to money.bev


----------



## Nicky1970 (Dec 15, 2010)

I'm outraged. 
By all means expose greedy pharmamceutical giants and bad procurement techniques by NHS managers but to blame diabetics ...
I've sent a rant via email to Channel 4 regarding Phil Carter's report, pointing out the descrepancies and suggesting that Mr Carter should familiarise himself with the types of diabetics, how they are different and the treatment regime in each case.
I look forward to Phil Carter's next journalistic masterpiece where he finds a medic who suggests the withdrawal of inhalers from asthmatics and wheelchairs from the disabled.

Still seething.

Nicky


----------



## Robster65 (Dec 15, 2010)

Not seen it or read the article yet but based on all the comments, it seems as you say that they are trying to make sensational 'outrage' story from a bit of a silly idea.
It makes no sense medically or financially, as the NHS will know. I was on the 'old' type insulins for a couple of decades and I would rather poke my eyes out with sharp sticks than return to those days.
Analogue gives us a stab at a normal life. I wonder if they'll suggest smokers and drinkers not getting free treatment or obese people havign to diet before they get any treatment ?  All equally stupid ideas that can grab headlines.

Lazy pseudo-journalism. 

Pharmaceuticals only exist because they make lots of money. Their investors demand big profits due to the high risk of failure after expensive research.

Rob


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

The article says that the 'majority of insulin taking diabetics' are Type 2. Is this true? Given that all Type1s use insulin, that suggests that more than 10% of Type2s do. I haven't a clue, although that's not the impression I have gained since I was diagnosed.


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

Northerner said:


> The article says that the 'majority of insulin taking diabetics' are Type 2. Is this true? Given that all Type1s use insulin, that suggests that more than 10% of Type2s do. I haven't a clue, although that's not the impression I have gained since I was diagnosed.



It could be that there are _that many_ more type 2s than type 1s, that there are more type 2s who use insulin?


----------



## bev (Dec 15, 2010)

Well there are 22,000 diabetic children in the Uk - only 445 of them are type 2 - so I would imagine the figures are much the same for adult diabetics.Bev


----------



## Hazel (Dec 15, 2010)

As a T2 insulin user - I should keep my head down, cos I reckon we are under threat, brought diabetes upon ourseves, and are costing the NHS a small fortune - JOKING, I think


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

katie said:


> It could be that there are _that many_ more type 2s than type 1s, that there are more type 2s who use insulin?



That's what I was thinking - 10% of diabetics are Type 1, so of the remaining 90% more than about 300,000 must be on insulin. Actually, I seem to remember seeing the number 900,000 somewhere but can't remember where!

As you said earlier katie, imagine how much the NHS could save if they just gave people better advice at diagnosis about diet rather than the general lots of starchy carbs.


----------



## shiv (Dec 15, 2010)

katie said:


> I dont get this:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more Type 1s are using analogue insulin, so why are they talking about Type 2s?



Basically, their argument/studies showed that old, human insulins were as effective for people with type 2 as the newer (more expensive) analogue insulins. Thus everyone on insulin should be bumped back to human insulin.

I was furious that they played such a guilt trip on insulin users. "They cost the taxpayer..." etc so on so forth.

I saw one guy saying the reason so many type 2s are put straight onto analogue insulin is because nowadays DSNs etc are educated primarily on analogues, and don't know as much about human insulins.


----------



## rossi_mac (Dec 15, 2010)

another example where I am glad I don't watch the news or read papers much, ignorance is bliss, best served on ice  even if I am still costing the NHS a fortune and whatever else they banged on about, probably all my fault too! There is a new T2 drug which is supposed to stimulate your pancrease in some fashion which I believe is costly, but hasn't been out long I don't think, I don't think you can get it on the NHS yet anyway! a mate is on it and it is doing serious wonders!

heading back to dark hole now!

Rossi


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 15, 2010)

Didn't see this and a little confused. Returning to 'human' from analogues might mean Actrapid and Insulatard, these were what I was on before moving to Novorapid and Lantus. As I remember the main difference was the onset and duration which were longer in both for Actrapid and similar/shorter for both in Insulatard. As a type 1 I'm not sure I noticed a *revolutionary* improvement in control with the analogues, though they are much easier to use and live with. I had not realised that the analogues were so much more expensive, nor (as others have said) that there are more T2 insulin users than T1s. It's hardly surprising that Big Pharma wants everyone on the really costly juice. 

I completely agree with Katie and Northerner in that the main issue seems to be the poor dietary advice given and lack of bg strips prescribed for so many (self motivated and forum members excepted obviously) which contributes to the need for some to use insulin in the first place!

Are there any T2s around who have experience of human insulins? Curious that the BMJ seem to support the questionable diabetes-bashing journalism.


----------



## Twitchy (Dec 15, 2010)

Robster65 said:


> . I was on the 'old' type insulins for a couple of decades and I would rather poke my eyes out with sharp sticks than return to those days.
> Rob



I was on the old type insulins for a couple of decades too, and I wouldn't need to poke my eyes out, they're falling to sodding pieces anyway, because of decades of sub-optimal control on old insulins!!!!!  

As for the comment on C4 webpage about how Type 2's "would probably do quite well" on the older insulin, define QUITE WELL please?!!  Only lose one eye to retinopathy?!  

I am TOTALLY FURIOUS!!! I have spent the whole of today being pushed pillar to post between GP, Optician & ****ing useless "Eye casualty" dept because my bad eye is bleeding like a sieve again - and the attitude I was faced with at eye cas once mentioning the words diabetic & retinopathy was awful - the immediate assumption as ever being "oh, your control's bad then?" (You stupid worthless waste of nhs money you!). I am so sick & tired of being stereotyped as a waste of nhs money & people assuming that because I have "expensive' complications it must obviously be my fault because I was neglegent...where are they going to drwa the line?! It feels like stupid bean counters are actually weighing up whether i'm too expensive to keep healthy. Sorry to be melodramatic, but I'm feeling really low about this. Like someone said, it feels like a witch hunt & I'm sick of being beaten up over something I didn't bring on myself & have had limited resources & support to combat over the last 3 decades.  "NICE"?...an ironic acronym if ever there was one.


----------



## Robster65 (Dec 15, 2010)

That's terrible Twitchy. I had a bleed a few years ago and was treated brilliantly, it turning out to be a corneal ulcer and non-D related but A&E were really good and professional. It makes you wonder whether stories like this are influencing even the professionals to think we're just taking meds and wasting them by eating chocolate cakes all the time.

There is going to be a backlash at some point if they squeeze too hard. There was when they tried to limit cancer, etc drugs and it'll happen if they push too hard to save cash on essentials like insulin. 

We don't need idiotic fiction like this to be aired to the public. It soon becomes fact in the public mind and also amongst the medical profession.

Rob


----------



## Twitchy (Dec 15, 2010)

I HATE Channel 4... I am sick to death of even medical professionals just bumbling along with the media's rubbish.  

I have had T1 since 11 months age, on 2 injections of humulin isophane & soluble etc (these wonderful cheap insulins C4 is raving about).... I don't want to think what my HbA1cs were and that was with a strict set of parents, one of which was a nurse!!  Background retinopathy by my early 20s, which once I'd done a DAFNE course (& someone had FINALLY told me how to link BG levels, insulin doses & what I ate & make some kind of sense of it!!!) and it actually improved a bit... 2 pregnancies later, which are known to potentially accelerate retinopathy & hey ho for bleeds city... athough maybe C4 would suggest 'old' diabetics shouldn't be allowed to have babies as it's too expensive for the nhs...a handy side effect of back door eugenics?! Honestly, I want to get a diabotics tee shirt made up with "Yes, I have retinopathy, NO my control is not bad, YES I resent your ignorance!!" Or maybe something punchier / wittier 

Anyway, ranting now which won't help anything...off to bed to rest this stupid eye (& the good one)!

I am coming to the conclusion that I just need to block C4 from my TV / computer....


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

They were very selective about who they spoke to I noticed. I think the only diabetic they spoke to was someone who didn't want to change from Mixtard because it is being withdrawn. They didn't interview anyone, like Rob and Twitchy here, or maybe T2s with long experience of both types who could give a much more precise and true-to-life explanation of the differences.

Is it just my closeness to the subject, or is there any other prevalent illness that gets such a bashing? And is the diabetic bashing increasing in recent years, because I don't really recall this level of anti-D from my pre-diagnosis days. Is it because the economy has changed so much in the past 2-3 years and suddenly everyone is noticing how much things cost?


----------



## Robster65 (Dec 15, 2010)

I suspect it's the latter suggestion you give Northerner. There was never such a tightening of the purse strings as now.

And of course, stories like this circulate the myth that it's all brought on by over-indulgence and laziness, consequently draining the NHS of resources that could save lots of very unhealthy journalists in their middle age.

I don't believe it will actually influence any policies but it will make it more difficult to educate the masses and gives the less scrupulous doctors an excuse to query the outlay on consumables.

Apparently though GPs have done very well financially out of the NHS budgets recently, so we were told this morning.

Rob


----------



## katie (Dec 15, 2010)

bev said:


> Well there are 22,000 diabetic children in the Uk - only 445 of them are type 2 - so I would imagine the figures are much the same for adult diabetics.Bev



you mean there are only 445 type 2 adults in the UK? I probably know half of them 



Northerner said:


> That's what I was thinking - 10% of diabetics are Type 1, so of the remaining 90% more than about 300,000 must be on insulin. Actually, I seem to remember seeing the number 900,000 somewhere but can't remember where!
> 
> As you said earlier katie, imagine how much the NHS could save if they just gave people better advice at diagnosis about diet rather than the general lots of starchy carbs.



It doesn't surprise me that there are more Type 2s on Insulin, due to there being so many more Type 2s.

I would love to have a discussion with someone in the NHS about why they don't offer different dietary advice.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 15, 2010)

katie said:


> ...I would love to have a discussion with someone in the NHS about why they don't offer different dietary advice.




They probably base it on some discredited study, like the Farmer one that says testing for Type 2s is bad.


----------



## Barb (Dec 16, 2010)

*Minor Benefits?*

Still furious after watching the Ch 4 report. On human insulins I had numerous night hypos and several visits to casualty because the wonderful Humulin insulin I was on conveniently reached its peak in the middle of the night - very helpful when most people are asleep. The cost to the NHS in terms of ambulance crews, hospital treatment etc must be significantly higher than providing a sensible insulin (Lantus or Levemir) which doesn't have this problem and administers insulin at a slow, steady rate.

I felt much more in control when analogue insulins came out and would hate to return to the bad old days.

I share the confusion about the emphasis on Type II's in the programme - always thought a relative minority were on insulin.



Donald said:


> This is on the channel 4 news that started at 7  till 18:55 it is on sometime in that time
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Steff (Dec 16, 2010)

I decided after the hospital on channel 4 i'd avoid anything like this...


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 16, 2010)

Northerner said:


> They probably base it on some discredited study, like the Farmer one that says testing for Type 2s is bad.



I think you are right Alan. The study I've read bout this year is the 7 Nation study conclusions of which formed the basis of the 'lots of whole grains is good for the heart' diet. Since those with Diabetes are more at risk from heart disease the 'starchy carbs' madness began (even though carbs are the very thing that play havoc with a diabetic's metabolism). Conspiracy theorists point out that 20-odd nations were involved in the study to begin with, but that results which didn't fit the desired outcome (eg France I think) were ignored. Oh and I believe the study was funded by the US grain industry which was in a bit of a slump at the time!


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Dec 16, 2010)

Thouroughly enjoyed reading this thread......

I read the website article and it only mentioned type 2 patients as far as I am aware........why is that?

End of the day, we pay our taxes so give us the treatment without moaning......its never as simple as that I know......


----------



## oskar (Dec 16, 2010)

Northener I think you are spot on...at times of economic downturn, disabled people including those with medical conditions are the first in the firing line. 

I didn't see the report but have read about it.......I suspect any credible findings will have been hopelessly lost in the reporting anyway. My friend watched the hospital and commented afterwards that people like the young girl with type 1 shouldn't even be treated on the NHS  It really upset me..she herself has had recent treatment for a problem which is linked with smoking and excess weight round the middle....would I ever point this out to her ...of course not.

I believe the young girl in the hopital was finding it tough, no wonder. For me type 1 is like those things you did at fetes...pulled a loop over a sort of electic twisted wire without touching it.....nigh on impossible and s.thing that type 1s do every day. Little wonder that without support some people find it so difficult.

Sorry this is not meant to be 1 vs 2 thread, a couple of my family have type 2 and I believe there is a strong  gentic link. I also think the lack of test strips offered to those with type 2 and appalling dietary advice is shocking, As is the constant guilt tripping and blame which must be very hurtful


----------



## shiv (Dec 16, 2010)

novorapidboi26 said:


> I read the website article and it only mentioned type 2 patients as far as I am aware........why is that?



Because the whole report was actually centered around people with type 2, and the argument that those type 2s who use insulin should be able to use the old, cheap versions of insulin and see no clinical difference.

Just wanted to clarify for everyone - they weren't discussing people with type 1 going onto human insulins - just insulin using type 2s. Until they mentioned they were discussing type 2, I sat on the sofa absolutely furious. Still furious at the blame culture it brought about, but have calmed down re 'are they telling ME, as  TYPE ONE DIABETIC, TO GO BACK ONTO MIXED INSULIN?!' thing that I was feeling.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 16, 2010)

novorapidboi26 said:


> I read the website article and it only mentioned type 2 patients as far as I am aware........why is that?



It seems there are more T2s using insulin than T1s (counter-intuitive, but possible I suppose since the number of T2s is so much higher. The report seems to have suggested (I really must watch it this mornign!) that while many/most of those T2s are put on new/expensive analogues there is less benefit for them in using those insulins and recent (cheaper) human varieties may well provide similar/identical assistance in control. How this has been studied/researched I don't know. I also don't believe that the report suggested there was no advantage for T1s, though as I say, I've not seen it yet!

More than anything it's the relentless diabetes-bashing tone (in line with most reporting) which seems to have provoked so much anger.


----------



## shiv (Dec 16, 2010)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> I also don't believe that the report suggested there was no advantage for T1s, though as I say, I've not seen it yet!



It actually didn't mention type 1 once. Lots of use of the general term 'diabetes' but no mention of type 1. The only way type 1 was implied was by these stupid shots they did whilst reading quotes etc - blurry people in the background giving themselves injections - they were all so young it would be safe to presume they were all type 1.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 16, 2010)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> It seems there are more T2s using insulin than T1s (counter-intuitive, but possible I suppose since the number of T2s is so much higher. The report seems to have suggested (I really must watch it this mornign!) that while many/most of those T2s are put on new/expensive analogues there is less benefit for them in using those insulins and recent (cheaper) human varieties may well provide similar/identical assistance in control. How this has been studied/researched I don't know. I also don't believe that the report suggested there was no advantage for T1s, though as I say, I've not seen it yet!
> 
> More than anything it's the relentless diabetes-bashing tone (in line with most reporting) which seems to have provoked so much anger.



The whole report for me was undermined by the scattergun approach of numbers and amounts of money. In the face of the huge overall cost of treating nearly 3m people with a lifelong disease, the cost savings (that they had calculated) were extremely small, and even then based on shaky assumptions. For example, though it may be true that more T2s are on insulin, what proportion of them are on a basal insulin only? If they require a long and short-acting insulin, then surely the benefits of analogue insulins, like improved flexibility with lifestyle and diet control, are the same for T2 as for T1? In that case, the 'clinical benefits'  might be huge - as attested by all the stories I have read hear about how much better life was when they switched to analogue basal/bolus insulins.

Yes, pharma make big profits for what may be perceived as small improvements by some in the medical profession, but they also put a great deal into new research for even better solutions. The 'returns' may not be as great with each new improvment, but that is because cruder methods are being refined and it is inevitable. The NICE woman suggested she would expect to see twice the benefit if she was paying twice as much - that is utter nonsense! Imagine if she had been around at the discovery of insulin - we might never have progressed from the crude mashed up pancreas to NPH because it was more expensive and possibly wasn't 'twice as good'.

Reflecting on it (and I recorded it so I could see it again after I had calmed down) it was a very poor piece of reporting.


----------



## Copepod (Dec 16, 2010)

I really can't see the problem of saying that there's no point paying double for drugs that give negligible or no advantages over cheaper drugs. The whole report was about T2D, with no discussion of T1D, but that's what the NICE report was about. If human insulins are not suitable, after a trial peirod, then changing to analogues seems perfectly reasonable. 

As an aside, I've been using Humalin I (a human insulin) for about 15 years, and find it very suitable, with the additional benefit to the NHS that it costs about 50% as much as Lantus or Levemir. I think it's odd that people starting on insulin aren't started on the cheapest available, and changed if required to the more expensive.


----------



## shiv (Dec 16, 2010)

Copepod said:


> I think it's odd that people starting on insulin aren't started on the cheapest available, and changed if required to the more expensive.



They said this was down to the education (or lack of) of nurses who put people onto insulin. Drug reps only train them about new, analogue insulins - so they don't know much about older ones and thus are less keen to put people on them.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 16, 2010)

Copepod said:


> I really can't see the problem of saying that there's no point paying double for drugs that give negligible or no advantages over cheaper drugs. The whole report was about T2D, with no discussion of T1D, but that's what the NICE report was about. If human insulins are not suitable, after a trial peirod, then changing to analogues seems perfectly reasonable.
> 
> As an aside, I've been using Humalin I (a human insulin) for about 15 years, and find it very suitable, with the additional benefit to the NHS that it costs about 50% as much as Lantus or Levemir. I think it's odd that people starting on insulin aren't started on the cheapest available, and changed if required to the more expensive.



I think that, whilst there was an element of truth in the basis for the story, the whole thing was blown far out of proportion purely for the purposes of sensationalising the supposed 'drain' on NHS of people with diabetes, making them appear selfish and greedy, and of course largely responsible for engineering their requirements for insulin by not living a healthy enough lifestyle. Remove all that and there is only a very small, and quite sensible possible saving which I can entirely accept. This report was not delivered with that intention.

Taking Shiv's point though, there would also be an additional cost in training nurses to know all the ins and outs of the different, human insulins and given the pressure in some areas this may constitute an extra expense, as would the need for closer monitoring of patients to see whether they would benefit from a move to an analogue insulin. My guess is that if, as you and the programme propose, people are started on the cheaper insulin then they will remain on that because few will have the benefit of close-monitoring by knowledgeable people who could identify a need for a change.

Thus, people would be left with inferior care for the sake of a few pounds.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 16, 2010)

Well I've finally managed to get the web version to play (it said it was unavailable for quite a long time) and I can fully understand why everyone got so upset.

What little information it containes was so deeply buried in the diabetic-bashing 'look how much money they are costing us' nonsense that it was almost impossible to see. In many places it was almost entirely misleading.

Shame really because the real 'nasties' (Big Pharma) didn't seem to come out of it too badly.

I can feel a blog coming on.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 17, 2010)

Posted about this yesterday here: Diabetes bashing on Channel 4 News

I'll be sending my thoughts to Channel 4 too


----------



## Northerner (Dec 17, 2010)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Posted about this yesterday here: Diabetes bashing on Channel 4 News
> 
> I'll be sending my thoughts to Channel 4 too



It's an excellent read Mike


----------



## Donald (Dec 17, 2010)

Here are Two links about it the full article is on second link


http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c7139


http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c7139.full


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 17, 2010)

Thanks Donald

I'll be interested to read those.


----------



## FM001 (Dec 17, 2010)

Cost should never come into the equation when dealing with people's health, after all it is far cheaper to deal with diabetes effectively now then to deal with the aftermath of complications and cost of hospital admittances, but if the pharmaceutical giants are over-charging for these insulin's then this needs seriously addressed.

Nurses and hospital clinics choose to start patients on the analogue insulin's as they provide the best results in normalising blood glucose and have a flatter profile than the human and animal insulin's that went before, therefore rather than start patients on older insulin's that are problematic, its much easier to prescribe the newer analogues and this way everyone is happy all round.


----------



## Marc (Dec 17, 2010)

Hi I'm still here very angry atm just see my tweet. 

To Phil Carter as someone who was on #mixtard30 for 15 years no way would I ever go back my eyes are better & my AB H1C is now 6.6 from 16!


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 17, 2010)

Marc said:


> Hi I'm still here very angry atm just see my tweet.
> 
> To Phil Carter as someone who was on #mixtard30 for 15 years no way would I ever go back my eyes are better & my AB H1C is now 6.6 from 16!



Marc, the article was very misleading and continued to stress that there was 'no difference' in the effectiveness of the treatments. But they were talking about type 2 (I can't explain why this might be different) not type 1. Skim reading those links Donald posted, it also seems they were mostly concerning T2s on long-acting only. Again I don't know how many T2s are on this sort of regimen... I don't think I've met any on forums!


----------



## Marc (Dec 17, 2010)

I know one who used to have a show on The 'Bridge.

Marc


----------

