25 February 2012 Last updated at 09:48 ET Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play. Sir Andrew Witty from GSK said drugs were being "systematically delayed" from introduction and reimbursement Ministers have rejected claims by the UK's biggest drug firm GlaxoSmithKline that new cancer treatments are being delayed to save money. "Strategic thoughtfulness" was being lost in the "stampede" to cut costs, GSK chief Sir Andrew Witty said. It was a Europe-wide problem as governments coped with austerity and got more anxious about debts, he added. But the Department of Health said the approval process was getting faster and it had increased spending on new drugs. Mr Witty, the head of the pharmaceutical giant, told the BBC: "We're seeing oncology drugs being systematically delayed from introduction and reimbursement. "We're seeing a variety of the more innovative, and yes more expensive medicines, being delayed in a whole series of different diseases across Europe." "Ultimately it's one of those situations where the drift will be imperceptibly happening, but when you look back in five or 10 years, a huge gap will have opened up." He also said the government had cut prices by 5% a year as it got more … Continue reading →

"Cancer in the UK is a good example where we're seeing oncology drugs being systematically delayed from introduction and reimbursement. "We are seeing a variety of the more innovative and more expensive medicines being delayed in a whole series of different diseases across Europe." Sir Andrew accused governments of treating the pharmaceuticals industry as a "simple procurement business" without understanding the wider implications of their decisions. "As governments have got more and more anxious about their debt positions and austerity agendas, what happened is quite predictable," he said. "If you are a minister and you need to cut costs, it is a lot easier to cut drug prices than it is to close a hospital or reduce the size of the Civil Service. I understand that. "The issue here is, of course, if you don't buy the new drug it is going to save you money in the drug bill. But the drug bill is only 8 per cent to 10 per cent of the total health care bill and what is being lost in this stampede for cost cut is any kind of strategic thoughtfulness." Professor Jonathan Waxman, of Imperial College London, said a number of new cancer drugs … Continue reading →

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Drugmaker-funded science isn't always more likely to favor new medicines than studies paid for by non-profits, according to a new report on past research in rheumatoid arthritis. The finding flies in the face of a large body of evidence showing industry studies tend to promote new drugs and downplay potential side effects. That potential bias has fueled concerns that medical care could be guided by warped science, not least because more and more research is being done or paid for by companies with money riding on the results. The new report, published in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism, shows 37 of 49 drug trials funded exclusively by manufacturers had positive results. When non-profits such as the government or a foundation picked up the tab, 11 of 16 trials found the studied drug to be effective. That difference -- seven percent -- is too small to be statistically reliable, meaning that a trial's outcome didn't depend on who sponsored it. Still, Dr. Nasim Khan, who led the new work, was quick to add a caveat. "A single study limited to (clinical trials in a single disease) is insufficient to completely dispel worries about potential for bias … Continue reading →

The head of Britain biggest drugs company has accused the Government of systematically delaying the introduction of new cancer drugs in order to save money. GlaxoSmithKline chief executive Sir Andrew Witty warned that ministers were making false economies as they tried to grapple with the deficit in the public finances. In an interview with the BBC, he said that governments across Europe had already cut drug prices by 5% a year - costing GSK around £300 million per annum. However, he said governments were now seeking to go further in an effort to achieve even bigger savings - and he highlighted Britain's decision to delay new cancer treatments. "The bit I'm much more frightened about is that what's now beginning to become clear is that, in addition to price reductions, governments are delaying the approval of innovative new drugs," he said. "So a second way they can save money, they think, is 'Let's just not buy the next round of innovation'. "Cancer in the UK is a good example where we're seeing oncology drugs being systematically delayed from introduction and reimbursement. "We are seeing a variety of the more innovative and more expensive medicines being delayed in a whole series … Continue reading →