Medicine shortages put patients at risk, MPs and peers warn
It also highlights the impact that shortages are having on patients with the likes of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), menopause and diabetes.
Writing in the report, Steve Race, chairman of the APPG on pharmacy, said many MPs 'have received a growing volume of correspondence from constituents who are understandably anxious about the availability of their medicines'.
'Whether it is a parent unable to access antibiotics for a sick child, an elderly patient facing delays in obtaining life-sustaining medication, or a pharmacist overwhelmed by the need to source alternatives, the human impact is both visible and deeply troubling,' he wrote.
The report said that while medicine shortages are 'not a new phenomenon', they have 'become increasingly severe, persistent, and disruptive' in recent years – leading to consequences for patients, staff and the wider health service.
Mr Race said: 'Medicines shortages have moved from isolated incidents to a chronic structural challenge for both the NHS and pharmacy sector.
'As Government continues to recognise and invest in the expanded clinical role of community pharmacy, we must ensure the medicines supply chain underpinning that care is equally robust, resilient and patient-focused.
'Pharmacy is central to NHS recovery and transformation, but frontline teams cannot safely expand clinical services while daily supply disruptions continue to impact the health of patients.'
The findings also highlight how shortages severely impact patients with conditions like ADHD, menopause and diabetes.
More than nine in 10 pharmacists, GPs and prescribers told an APPG survey ADHD medicines had been affected by shortages.
Around three quarters (76%) said HRT and diabetes drugs had been affected, while 44% said antibiotics.
One patient with ADHD told the inquiry they had been self-medicating with cannabis due to an ongoing shortage of methylphenidate.
The report said: 'These shortages are having a significant impact on patients' ability to access treatments and in some cases are having serious impact on patients' health and well-being.'
Mr Race added: 'Medicines security must be treated as a core component of NHS planning, alongside funding, workforce and digital infrastructure.
'Failure to act risks further undermining patient care and destabilising a community pharmacy sector that millions depend upon.'
The APPG has laid out a number of recommendations, which includes a number of measures to better support patients.
People impacted by shortages, particularly those with chronic conditions, struggle to find information on out of stock drugs, leading to 'frustration, dangerous delays in care, and unnecessary anxiety and harm', it said.
It also welcomed work being carried out by the Department of Health and Social Care to potentially change pharmacist prescribing protocols to allow pharmacists to make dose and formulation changes during shortages.
Elsewhere, the inquiry found more than eight in 10 pharmacists face daily shortages, with many spending hours every day finding alternative treatment and communicating with distressed patients.
One told the APPG they are 'constantly firefighting'.
Reacting to the report, Henry Gregg, chief executive of the National Pharmacy Association (NPA), said: 'Pharmacy teams are under enormous pressure but are forced to spend hours hunting down stock for distressed and frustrated patients.
'It is particularly frustrating for pharmacists to be unable to meet a clear need when they have a perfectly safe and effective solution in their pharmacy already.
'MPs are right that it is madness to send someone back to their GP to get a prescription changed, and it risks a patient either delaying taking vital medication or forgoing it altogether, which poses a clear risk to patient safety.
'As the APPG says, the Government must allow pharmacists – who are highly trained health care practitioners – to use their professional judgment to supply an appropriate alternative medication when the prescribed version is unavailable.'
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'This government inherited ongoing global supply problems, but we have robust measures in place to mitigate disruption for patients.
'We are working to build the resilience of medicine supply chains and prevent future disruption as we get the NHS back on its feet.
'We have recently agreed an extra £617 million of funding over two years with Community Pharmacy England to support the sector and provide patients with more services closer to home as part of our 10 Year Health Plan.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
21 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Cancer patient highlights impact of therapy journey
The Cancer Psychological Support (CaPS) Service, delivered by Hywel Dda University Health Board, supports cancer patients in Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, and Pembrokeshire. Funded by Hywel Dda Health Charities, the service began as a two-year pilot project in 2019–21 and continued with further funding until 2025. It has since become part of the core cancer services funded by the health board. Sharon, a patient who used the service, said: "I think it actually unlocked the real me. "That's what it actually did. "I'm now looking at things in a different way, I can deal with my thoughts and generally see the positive side of things, rather than the negative." She also praised the support of her therapist and said: "I was able to explore all sorts of things with Helen. "It helped to talk to someone I didn't know." The CaPS service provides psychological support to cancer patients aged 16 and over across the health board area. Specialist counsellors are based in each of the three counties and receive an average of 23 referrals per month. Gina Beard, lead cancer nurse at Hywel Dda University Health Board, said: "There are no waiting lists at all. "Referrals are received, assessed, and contacted within two weeks, which means that cancer patients in the area get the psychological support they need very quickly." Each patient or carer is offered up to 12 counselling sessions, with more than 3,000 sessions delivered annually. The team also provides training for cancer staff to help them offer psychological support in their daily work, such as when breaking bad news or managing difficult conversations. The health board has become the first in Wales to offer Level 3 psychological support for cancer patients as a core, NHS-funded service. Nicola Llewelyn, head of Hywel Dda Health Charities, said: "This would not have happened if the project had not received charitable funds which enabled cancer services to identify the needs of patients and the impact of providing a service that met those needs. "Thanks to the generosity of local communities, we are able to fund projects like this which are above and beyond core NHS expenditure, and which make such a big difference to the experiences of patients, carers and staff. "Never has the charity been more important in helping deliver the very best care and experiences for patients and staff."
Daily Mirror
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'I noticed something odd on my nail and it turned out I had cancer'
After Lauren Koltcz realised her nail had changed slightly, it was TikTok that encouraged her to see a specialist - and the teacher has revealed just how lucky she was that she listened An American woman found out she had melanoma after noticing the nail on her thumb looked different to usual. Lauren Koltcz said that at first she became aware of a slight change to the nail. 'It started out as a tiny little brown line on the bottom of my nail. I was like, well, that's odd,' she explained. A doctor encouraged her to see a dermatologist, but Koltcz, from Ohio, 'put it on the back burner' as she was busy with other things. However, after doing some research online, she realised it could be something much more serious than she had thought. She explained: 'I was scrolling on TikTok, and I happened to come across a dermatologist saying, 'If you see these signs on your nails, make sure you go see your doctor very quickly.' And I was like, oh, well, this doesn't sound good.' After being seen by a specialist, the teacher was diagnosed with melanoma. Allison Vidimos, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, said: 'Her biopsy showed what's called a melanoma in situ, what that means is that the melanoma cells are just in the upper layer of the skin. It was not invasive, so her outcome should be very good.' In the end, the entire nail had to be surgically removed. Koltcz said: 'It is rare, and it's scary that it's rare because a lot of people would not think to check their nails.' Reflecting on the health scare, she warned: 'I thought about my kids a lot during this whole process. And so, I beg people, please check everything. Don't put it off. Prevention is key.' Another sign that you should look out for in your nails, other than a dark streak, is dark skin appearing next to the nail. 'When the skin around your nail becomes darker, it could be a sign of advanced melanoma,' the American Academy of Dermatology Association explained. You should also make an appointment with a specialist if you notice your nail lifting from your fingers or toes, if your nail splits down the middle, or if you notice a bump or module under your nails. The AADA said that nail melanoma is 'often diagnosed at a more advanced stage than melanoma on the skin, making it more dangerous for your health'. It added: 'If you notice any changes to your nails, including a new dark band on your nail, make an appointment to see a board-certified dermatologist.' The NHS advises keeping an eye on moles as they can be a sign of melanoma. While melanomas can appear anywhere on the body, they are more common in areas that are often exposed to the sun. You should check your skin for any unusual changes such as moles that are uneven in shape or a mix of two or more colours. The NHS urges people to see a GP if they have a mole that is swollen, sore, bleeding, itchy, or crusty, as 'finding a melanoma as early as possible can mean it's easier to treat'.
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Pay doctors more – by slashing the salaries of useless bureaucrats
British state dysfunction is so all-encompassing that working out where one problem begins and another ends is a time-consuming activity all on its own. Take the threatened resident doctors' strikes. It's not an unreasonable stance to point out that salaries are below their 2008 peak, and ask for a pay rise to make up for this. It is difficult to hand these out, however, when NHS productivity is down somewhere between 5pc and 11pc on 2019/20 levels, making pay awards hard to justify. This is particularly so when the Government is spending £111bn on debt interest this year alone, local council budgets have already been shredded and social care is a mess. If you're confused about how these things tie together, bear with me. Let's start with the doctors. The British Medical Association (BMA) claims that below-inflation pay rises means that resident (junior) doctors are worse off in pay terms today than they were 17 years ago. This is hard to dispute: whether you prefer to measure inflation with the Consumer Price Index or the Retail Price Index (RPI), the broad thrust is that prices have risen faster than pay for residents. In a market system, this would simply be how supply is matched to demand. In the UK healthcare system, however, there is no real market. The NHS is by far the largest provider of medical services in the country, which gives it an enormous degree of power over the wages of trained doctors. For those starting out, the deal is even worse. In order to qualify to practice in Britain, med school graduates must complete two years of training. This, in turn, takes place with NHS employers. It's not particularly difficult to see how this might lead to unwelcome compression of the wage premium for people who've just slogged through years of strenuous education: foundation year one doctors earn above median but below mean UK wages, with foundation year two still falling below the 75th percentile for the economy as a whole. That there could be a relatively straightforward way to raise the pay of doctors: abolish the NHS, and let the market work. Unfortunately, given that Sir Keir Starmer has insisted that he would never, under any circumstances, pay for a loved one to be treated privately rather than wait their turn on an NHS list, this option is probably off the table. This same opposition to reform and private sector involvement makes it hard to see a clean route to restoring lost productivity in the health service in the near future. In other words, if we're going to give doctors a pay rise, the money will have to come from other budgets. Quite a lot of money, as it happens. The BMA wants 'pay restoration' to 2008 levels. So do many others: it is a testament to almost two decades of economic mismanagement that private sector wages earlier this year were also below their 2008 peak. With the BMA increasingly aggressive in its negotiating stance, its critics are entitled to note that countries like Australia and Canada are far more stringent in restricting the ability of doctors to strike. Carry on in this vein, and they may well lose the sympathies of the public altogether. Assume for a moment though that we choose to grant this rise. The increase the resident doctors are asking for is enough to make up for a 21pc fall in wages, so a raise in the region of 27pc. According to the Nuffield Trust, each 1pc uptick in resident doctors' pay costs around £51m. The total cost of a 27pc rise would be somewhere in the region of £1.4bn. This is excessive, but it's a fair point that doctors may well feel undervalued relative to other jobs. It can't feel particularly good for resident doctors on £46,000, for instance, to see the NHS hiring in diversity commissars on salaries of £122,000. And it doesn't seem quite right for highly skilled workers who work long hours in unpleasant conditions, risking exposure to dangerous infectious diseases, to be paid less than unemployable Whitehall apparatchiks dialling into Zoom calls in their dressing gowns. Here, then, is a modest proposal. The total public sector pay bill was £270bn in 2023/24. If we can cut it by 0.5pc, then the doctors can have their pay rise. Figures from the Taxpayers' Alliance suggest that local government spending on diversity roles cost roughly £23m in 2023, alongside £13 million in the NHS. Thirty-six million towards a £1.4bn black hole is not a promising start. In fact, even taking the maximal savings implied by one estimate of public sector spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jobs – £557m a year – would still only get us a third of the way towards paying for it. And not all of these savings would be free to spend. Local government finances are in a shambolic state, with real budgets down 9pc on their 2010 levels. The slow squeeze of rising social care, school transport and housing costs, meanwhile, is eroding waste simply by erasing discretionary spending. Any savings made on woke waste might have to go towards social care, or if it does go to the NHS, it may actually risk making it worse. How, you ask? The single biggest productivity challenge facing NHS executives is discharging patients on time. Blocked beds stymie the flow of patients through hospitals, in turn slowing the flow of patients off waiting lists. These delays are most often caused by waiting for support for the patient at home – often adult social care arranged by local government bodies scrabbling for cash. Spending more on social care might be better for NHS productivity than actually spending on the NHS itself. At this point, however, I have some good news: we can do this, and still restore doctors' pay in real terms. The BMA's calculation of the fall in doctors' pay since 2010 is fundamentally flawed. It uses the now discredited RPI measure of inflation which is known to overestimate rises in the price level (among other problems, when prices rise and then fall back to their starting level, the RPI can still show prices as having risen). This is obviously absurd, and after years of dragging its heels, the Government conceded as much. As a result, from 2030 onwards the RPI is set to simply mirror an alternative, better-calculated measure of inflation, saving the Government a couple of billion each year in the process. In other words, the doctors' pay demands seemed excessive because they were excessive. If the BMA had used better measures of inflation, they would be looking for a 5pc pay rise, or £255m – less than half of the estimated DEI spend. And this, in turn, gives us our desired outcome: we can give the doctors actual pay restoration, pay for it by cutting public sector jobs that shouldn't exist in the first place, and have some money leftover to ease the strain on social care into the bargain, improving NHS productivity – an all-round win for taxpayers.
