The applicant appealed a refusal of a judicial review of the respondent’s decision to restrict the prescription of their drug Viagra. They argued that under the transparency directive, the government was obliged to carry out a public process of comparing priorities.
Held: The process of making this decision was one of allocating funds to competing needs and choosing priorities. That was essentially a political decision about the affordability of different remedies. It was not clear what sort of analysis might be given if ordered, and was not to be required as a pre-requisite of restricting prescription.
Judges:
Lord Justice Buxton, Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
Times 11-Nov-2002, Gazette 16-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1566
Links:
Statutes:
Council Directive 89/105/EEC the Transarency Directive Art 7
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Health, Administrative
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178109
