11th July 2011
On 11th July 2011, I (Lesley) attended the APPG for Diabetes. This was the AGM, so the Chairman, Adrian Sanders MP (Lib Dem, Torbay) reported that in the last year, this APPG had gained increased membership of parliamentarians, had raised questions in both parliamentary houses, generated special debates, linked with parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and set up a worldwide parliamentary database for parliamentarians interested in diabetes, so that a monthly newsletter about diabetes research, news and strategies could be circulated. Over the next year, discussions at APPG meeting would provide the evidence for ministers to move issues on into debates and legislation. All officers were re-elected unopposed.
Dr Daniela Elleri, Clinical Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge gave a presentation on the artificial pancreas (AP) project, now in its 4th year at Cambridge. She said the 3 devices which comprise the AP, an insulin pump, CGM and a computer running an algorithm, all already existed and two of them are in use by patients. The challenge is the availability of those components on the NHS. The results of the project are very encouraging and an update was published in The Lancet in 2010. Patients using the AP overnight spent significantly more time within good blood glucose range with minimised risk of hypoglycaemia. They will soon be running home-based trials, again overnight. Dr Elleri said this would be a realistic treatment option in the “near future”.
8-year old Theo gave an engaging talk on how diabetes affects him now, and what having AP would mean to him. His dream is to be admired for his sports ability, not remembered for his blood glucose testing and Lucozade!
Sarah Johnson, JDRF UK’s Director of Communications and Policy, outlined the background of JDRF, its functions in finding a cure, keeping Type 1′s well until the cure is found, and increasing access to treatments that keep people well or cure them. Sarah said that research conducted in the US showed the economical impact of AP would be to save $1.9 billion over 25 years by avoiding complications (details here). She wondered how the UK would be ready for AP when access to insulin pump therapy and CGM is restricted, and said it would be a disgrace if US patients could access AP in 5 years’ time while patients in the UK could not get funding.
During the question and answer time, Adrian Sanders MP said that access to insulin pumps and CGM should be fought on an economical basis at local level. He said that if people with diabetes did not push the diabetes agenda to the front of the queue, then another health issue would take its place.
However, the NICE website says this about its Technology Appraisals:
“NICE is asked to look at particular drugs and devices when the availability of the drug or device varies across the country. This may be because of different local prescribing or funding policies, or because there is confusion or uncertainty over its value. Our advice ends the uncertainty and helps to standardise access to healthcare across the country.
The NHS is legally obliged to fund and resource medicines and treatments recommended by NICE’s technology appraisals (details here).
This seems clear to me that, having received recommended status (for those that meet the criteria), insulin pump therapy should NOT need to be fought for at local level as the decision has already been made centrally. I will persue this matter with the APPG.
See our 
