Innovation trumps politics

As 2016 draws to a close, many of us will start thinking about changes we can make in the year ahead.

A lot of people are saying that 2016 wasn’t really a great year. Music lovers mourned the losses of David Bowie and Prince amongst others.

Similarly, here in the UK there was a sense of grief amongst those who voted to remain in the EU.

And, even more recently, that same odd sensation was felt in the US after the election of Donald Trump. It’s a weird realisation that, as 2016 comes to a close, the world seems like a very different place.

But we certainly can’t assume that all this change is bad (though I for one will seriously miss David Bowie, and I’m still not over it yet).

Take for instance the changes being made by HCPs in response to the war on AMR. Public Health England statistics now show that for the first time in England, the trend towards increased antibiotic use has reversed.

In fact, the latest figures show that figure reducing from 40.7 million to 38.5 million.

It’s a huge, and very positive change, but the responsibility doesn’t just reside with HCPs.

My partner, who works for our local council, sent me a text while she was at work the other day, saying ‘we’ve just been sent a circular advising us not to request antibiotics for winter colds. Does that sound right to you?’

Yes! It sounds very right to me! It sounds fantastic! If we’re to get on top of AMR, we need patients to play their part. But the problem is that she and all her colleagues had been given no real explanation as to why they were not to request them. They know, of course, that AMR exists and is a threat, but they still aren’t being given the full details. Where are the public service announcements, TV infomercials etc. etc.? More changes must still be made.

But back to HCPs. In our November/December print issue we get an update from Isobel Finnie and Catherine Williamson from European intellectual property firm Haseltine Lake, who give us an update on the wrangles between Pfizer and Actavis over the drug pregablin, and its second medical use patent.

Isobel and Catherine make that point that, in the case of second medical use patents, one major flaw in the plan is that only about 5% of doctors specify the use of the drug on their prescriptions. Where a prescription is written generically, the pharmacist is free to dispense whichever drug is available. Therefore is further change needed at the HCP end of the supply chain in order to ensure all pharmas get a fair bite of the apple?

2017 is sure to bring about change – some positive, and undoubtedly, some less so. But I believe that innovation will trump politics in the race for better healthcare.