Herbal Medicine and Healthcare

This assignment delves into the potential adverse effects of herbal medicines, referencing systematic reviews and clinical findings. It also examines relevant UK healthcare policies regarding cancer research and treatment, as well as broader health policies implemented under the coalition government. The document further analyzes the impact of cost-effectiveness ratios on funding decisions for cancer drugs within the NHS.

Health Policy
(Identify and critically appraise
the influences of context on a specific health policy)

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Public Health is one of the most important aspect for a nation. It includes all those
measures whether it is private or public taken by the government to improve the health of the
public. The majority of a nation's fund is spent on improving the health of the public. The aim of
the government is to prevent diseases and sustain the life of the entire population. Health policies
are decisions and actions taken to eradicate health related issues in the country (Health Policies,
2012). Cancer has been growing at a rapid pace in UK. As a result the British government had
made many policies for prevention and treatment of Cancer. The mortality rate has been high in
cancer and it is a bi issue that UK government has been facing.
Cancer has become an epidemic not only in UK but in the entire world. Every year more
than 250,000 people are diagnosed with cancer in England and around 130,000 people die out of
them. NHS (National Health Service) which is a public funded health care system of UK spends
over £5 Billion to treat and fight against cancer (NHS in England, 2016). The death rate is very
high in the country and very few patients survive form cancer. AS such it is very important for
British government to take steps in order to prevent this disease from growing. The reason
behind the growth of cancer is increased life span of people and change in lifestyle. Smoking,
alcohol, obesity and wrong diets are the main reason for the cancer (Fewtrell and Bartram, 2013).
Smoking and alcohol has been the major source of lung cancer in the country. There are different
type of cancer but all of them can be cured when they are treated at its initial stage. It is for this
reason only the government has been investing lot of funds in creating awareness and screening
the cancer before it becomes incurable (Cummins, 2014). This has been on a large scale and lot
of medical and health professionals have been included in this policy. They have to follow the
guidelines of these polices and work for the benefit of the society. So the government has been
getting the required aid from all these medical professionals in fighting against the cancer.
The UK government has introduced cancer research and treatment policy in 2015 to
create awareness about cancer and save people from this life threatening disease. Their aim is to
match Europe's average cancer survival rate which has been relatively low in the country (Yim
and Barrett, 2013). There have been many cancer awareness programmes in order to encourage
people to reduce smoking, alcohol, obesity and improve their diets. Young women are
recommended to get vaccinated for HPV to prevent from cervical cancer. There have been
regional as well as national campaigns to educate people about the symptoms of bowel, breast,
1

kidney, bladder and ovary cancer (Stewart and Wild, 2015). Be clear on cancer is one such
famous programme run by the government. The cancer health policy also aims in detecting the
cancer at its initial stages so it can be treated. For this many screening programmes are organised
in the country. There are large number of people who are unaware that they are suffering from
this disease (Forbes, Simon, Warburton, Boniface, Brain, Dessaix, Donnelly, Haynes, Hvidberg,
Lagerlund and Lockwood, 2013). The screening allows them to know about it. This screening
programme was started in 2006 and till now more than 15,000 cancer patients have been
detected. The government has spend more than £60 Million for the screening programmes. The
health policy also aims in improving the treatment and health services related to cancer. The
rural and underdeveloped areas have not been able to access these services till now. As such
those areas are given equal importance in the policy (Mullard, Misra, Sumra, Ali, O’Reilly and
Malik, 2014). The patients suffering from cancer are often discriminated and alienated from the
population. This health policy ensures that this attitude of the people have to be changed because
cancer in a non communicable disease. Even the health care professional cannot discriminate
them. The government helps the patients with all aspects of the disease. They work in close
relation with the PHE (Public Health England), NHS (National Health Service) and non
governmental organisations like Cancer Research UK and Macmillian Cancer Support for
organising campaigns and creating awareness (Schelenz, Barnes, Barton, Cleverley, Lucas,
Kibbler and Denning, 2015). Breast-cancer has been a big issue UK government as more and
more women are found with it in the recent past. The British law and regulations have helped the
women to gain access to medical care facilities. There are lot of priorities that are mentioned by
the government like reducing the breast cancer, improvement in the research programs,
maintaining quality care and educating people (Borley, Mercer, Morgan, Dutton, Barrett-Lee,
Brunelli and Jasani, 2014).
It is for the same reason that National Cancer Policy was established. Different people
from multiple sectors work in an association to formulate policies to eradicate cancer from the
country. For preventing and treating cancer many vaccines, medicines and treatments have been
developed (Posadzki, Watson, and Ernst, 2013). There have been constant efforts to bring down
the cost of different cancer treatments. It has been found that many patients who are in the
advanced stages continue to go for normal screening because of high cost of advanced screening.
The policy lays stress on reducing the cost of treatment for patients. The quality of treatments,
2

infrastructure and medical services have been improved (Borley, Mercer, Morgan, Dutton,
Barrett-Lee, Brunelli and Jasani, 2014). The foundation of CER (Comparative Effectiveness
Research) has been done to reduce the confusion of patients. The increased funds from the
government in public health sector and cancer programmes has been beneficial for the patients.
These funds have been utilise in health information technology to bring new innovations in
health care policies. This has given the opportunity to the researchers to develop personalised
medicines and vaccines for the patients (Godber, Ni Choitir, Ratcliffe, Bailey, Tatla, Fountain,
Cadwell and Fox, 2015). These cancer policies and programmes have been beneficial for the
nation but is it essential that the government continues funding it.
The implications of the cancer research and treatment policy has been positive and
favourable for the entire nation. Earlier only 1 out 4 people survived cancer but these days 2 out
of 4 survives. The government has been active in this respect and they have aimed to accelerate
this progress to 3 out 4 survives in the coming years. The awareness camps have also shown their
importance as more people have changed their lifestyles (Sheth, Sharp and Walters, 2013). The
cancer patients have been given the best possible service in the nation. UK policies have ensured
transparency in their outcomes. They have ensured that there is no premature deaths and the
quality of life is improved. The patients are treated in a safe environment and good service are
given to them (Cagney, 2015). The death rates have reduced because the screening programmes
has detected the disease at its initial stage. It is important to detect it in the early stage otherwise
the disease can become incurable. Some new policies to help this issue has also been introduced
by the government. The National Health Service has been included in it to support the initiative.
New vaccines have been very effective in treating cancer (Chan, 2015). Furthermore, those
patients who have to live with the disease have been good medical attention and antiretroviral
drugs. These drugs have helped them in slowing down the growth of the tumer. WHO has also
been involved with the UK government in developing new methods to cure the disease. The
priorities of the polices have also been fulfilled which is a positive sign. The new vaccines and
medicines are very useful. They have been working on developing medicines which would work
on diseases that have become resistant to antibiotics (Hague, Kelly, Cornthwaite and Birtle,
2013). So in future as well this policy would help the cancer patients. Those families who have
cancer patients and need support have also received help under the policy. They have been given
nursing, timely visits and are involved in programs like troubled and nervous family. Though the
3

government has to spend a huge part of income on public health services but its need is much
more than that. The policies have to be amended and changes in order to avoid any limitation in
it (Schoenherr, Watkins and Urbaniak, 2014). At present, these policies does not keep a record of
the experience of the patients who receive medical care. But this loophole has been found and
soon this change would be included in the policies as well. The underdeveloped regions and
acute hospitals are also getting better support and facilities. The health care professionals are
motivated to improve the experience of the patients. But still they have less structural guidelines
to do their duty but they have been doing it exceptionally (Walters, Maringe, Coleman, Peake,
Butler, Young, Bergström, Hanna, Jakobsen, Kölbeck and Sundstrøm, 2013). The policy makers
are also trying to implement changes and they want more involvement of the cancer patients in
the decision making process. NHS has been taking lot of steps to ensure that and designing the
services according to the needs (Cagney, 2015). The data and statistics have been kept and
regularly monitored to see the changes. This has shown positive trend as the mortality rate due to
cancer has reduced and that too in a good pace. It is for the same reason National Quality board
has been formulated (NHS in England, 2016). The policies have been very effective and it is also
getting the support form the local people. They are now aware about the symptoms and the
basics which are essential for them to know. Therefore, the overall implications of Cancer health
policy has been favourable and it has been beneficial for the entire nation.
UK has been trying to get the best outcomes of their policies in the world. But they have
to make certain changes in their policies. They have to keep a track of the cultural changes that
are happening in the country (Cancer research and treatment, 2015). Everyone should be
encouraged to live a healthy life and quit harmful activities. The screening technique also has
some harmful effects on the health of the people. So it would be better to bring some changes in
it. New diagnostic and screening methods have to be developed as soon as possible. The methods
have to be sustainable and safe for everyone (Health Policies, 2012). They has to be more efforts
in finding out the disease at its early stage otherwise the campaign would fail. The survival rates
have to be monitored as compared to see the effectiveness of the policy. There has to better
integration between NHS and PHE with the government. For the future lot of services has to be
prepared and all has to be done by PHE. These activities include public health intelligence,
primary prevention, screening quality assurance programmes and maintenance of cancer related
data (Godber, Ni Choitir, Ratcliffe, Bailey, Tatla, Fountain, Cadwell and Fox, 2015). There has
4

to be involvement of organisation like WHO and UNESCO along with the government. this
would benefit the entire nation and make it free from the epidemic cancer. It will also benefit the
general public as they will get protection from other harmful diseases as well.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the above discussion that the importance of health policy for a
nation cannot be overlooked. The topmost priority of a country is to improve the public health. If
the people are not healthy they would not be able to contribute to the economic development of
the country. The British government has realised the importance of public health and they been
working in this respect. Cancer has been growing in the entire world as such different polices are
needed to prevent it. The cancer health policy and cancer research and treatment policy has been
formulated because of the same reason. They have been very effective and the mortality rate due
to cancer has been reducing. Therefore the need and importance of health and related services
has been felt by all the nations. They have together in preventing this form happening. Not only
cancer but all diseases have been given equal importance.
5

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Borley, A., Mercer, T., Morgan, M., Dutton, P., Barrett-Lee, P., Brunelli, M. and Jasani, B.,
2014. Impact of HER2 copy number in IHC2+/FISH-amplified breast cancer on
outcome of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment in a large UK cancer network. British journal
of cancer. 110(8). pp.2139-2143.
Cagney, H., 2015. UK Cancer Drugs Fund to reassess 42 agents. The Lancet Oncology. 16(1).
p.e8.
Chan, D., 2015. Contemporary outcomes of specialist multidisciplinary treatment of
oesophagogastric cancer in a UK cancer network including an evaluation of
centralisation (Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University).
Cummins, S., 2014. Food deserts. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness,
Behavior, and Society.
Fewtrell, L. and Bartram, J., 2013. Water quality: guidelines, standards and health: assessment of
risk and risk management for water-related infectious disease. Water Intelligence
Online. 12. p.9781780405889.
Forbes, L.J.L., Simon, A.E., Warburton, F., Boniface, D., Brain, K.E., Dessaix, A., Donnelly, C.,
Haynes, K., Hvidberg, L., Lagerlund, M. and Lockwood, G., 2013. Differences in cancer
awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK
(the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): do they contribute to differences in
cancer survival&quest. British journal of cancer, 108(2), pp.292-300.
Godber, E., Ni Choitir, C., Ratcliffe, M., Bailey, O., Tatla, S., Fountain, D., Cadwell, K. and
Fox, D., 2015. Geographical Disparities in Colon Cancer Care in Europe: Implications for
Access to Innovative Medicines Via the UK Cancer Drugs Fund. Value in Health. 18(7).
p.A479.
Hague, C.J., Kelly, C.L.S., Cornthwaite, S.A. and Birtle, A.J., 2013. P105 Treatment options in
patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with
a docetaxel-containing regimen: A single UK cancer centre's experience using patients
within the early access programme and cancer drugs fund. European Urology
Supplements. 6(12). p.171.
Mullard, A.P., Misra, V., Sumra, P., Ali, Z., O’Reilly, S.M. and Malik, Z., 2014. Reducing
febrile neutropenia rates in early breast cancer. Experience of two UK cancer
centres. Supportive Care in Cancer. 22(8). pp.2033-2037.
Posadzki, P., Watson, L.K. and Ernst, E., 2013. Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an
overview of systematic reviews. Clinical medicine. 13(1). pp.7-12.
Schelenz, S., Barnes, R.A., Barton, R.C., Cleverley, J.R., Lucas, S.B., Kibbler, C.C. and
Denning, D.W., 2015. British Society for Medical Mycology best practice
recommendations for the diagnosis of serious fungal diseases. The Lancet Infectious
Diseases. 15(4). pp.461-474.
Schoenherr, N., Watkins, M. and Urbaniak, A.M., 2014. The UK cancer drug fund scoring
system and The impact of the incremental cost effectiveness ratio on funding
decisions. Value in Health. 17(7). p.A657.
Sheth, C.H., Sharp, S. and Walters, E.R., 2013. Enteral feeding in head and neck cancer patients
at a UK cancer centre. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. 26(5). pp.421-428.
6

Stewart, B.W.K.P. and Wild, C.P., 2015. World cancer report 2014. World.
Walters, S., Maringe, C., Coleman, M.P., Peake, M.D., Butler, J., Young, N., Bergström, S.,
Hanna, L., Jakobsen, E., Kölbeck, K. and Sundstrøm, S., 2013. Lung cancer survival and
stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: a
population-based study, 2004–2007. Thorax, pp.thoraxjnl-2012.
Yim, S.H., Stettler, M.E. and Barrett, S.R., 2013. Air quality and public health impacts of UK
airports. Part II: Impacts and policy assessment. Atmospheric Environment. 67. pp.184-
192.
Online
Cancer research and treatment. 2015. [Online] Available through:
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-cancer-
research-and-treatment/2010-to-2015-government-policy-cancer-research-and-
treatment>. [Accessed on 9th April 2016].
Health Policies. 2012. [Online] Available through:
<https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/health-policy-
under-the-coalition-government-kingsfund-nov2012.pdf>. [Accessed on 9th April 2016].
NHS in England. 2016. [Online] Available through:
<http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx >. [Accessed on 9th
April 2016].
7