Examination of Witness (Questions 740-742)
THURSDAY 9 JANUARY 2003
DR MUIR
GRAY
740. We know the risks of non-diagnosis and
non-treatment and the potential impact for the individual and
also the potential cost to the NHS, but we have found it very
difficult to find any UK-based cost-benefit study looking at the
advantages of chlamydia screening. Do you have any data on this
or can you point us in the direction?
(Dr Gray) No, I relied largely on the data from the
Swedish and American studies. Cost-benefit is always a difficult
thing to interpret. What we generally find is that some programmes
are either ridiculously cheap and we should get on and do them
(like asking everyone if they smoke), some are very, very expensive,
and most fall in the middle, and this one falls in about the CABG,
so it is in the reasonable category. The bigger problem comes
in terms of the cost-effectiveness of different options and we
have looked at that in the pilot and the next round will also
be looking at, for example, what the difference between method
A or method B is because we are dealing with a 50 million total
population. Small changes in unit cost can have a very big impact
on the Health Service as a whole so the cost-benefit is fairly
well established and probably does not need to be re-visited here
but cost-effectiveness of different options we need to be alert
to and be encouraging studies on all the time.
741. Generally you would be happy to accept
the Swedish data?
(Dr Gray) Yes.
Chairman
742. Do any of my colleagues have any further
points? Do you have anything else to add?
(Dr Gray) No, I am honoured to be asked. The National
Screening Committee has a web site and we have an annual report.
I am sure you are all overwhelmed with paper but I would be very
pleased to send it to you and I would be very pleased to help
this Committee in any way in the future.
Chairman: We are very grateful to you for your
help today. Please feel free to stay for the rest of the session
if you want.
| 
