7. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Scottish Medicines Consortium decision not to make the drugs Kadcyla and Perjeta available for breast cancer patients, in light of them being available in England under the cancer drugs fund. (S4O-03707)

The Scottish Medicines Consortium makes decisions independently of ministers. Its decisions on these drugs are disappointing for many and, like many patient groups, I encourage the manufacturer to make them available at a lower cost so that more people can have them as a treatment option in future.

Last week, NHS England announced that these drugs are included among those that are being reviewed in England in order to reduce the products and indications in the cancer drugs fund to bring its projected spend within budget.

The Minister and I are aware that, in many cases, these drugs can prolong life, perhaps for only a short time, in those who have inoperable cancers. Given that there is a possibility that the decisions might be reconsidered if the drugs companies lower prices, can the minister give any indication of a possible timescale for achieving that objective and having these drugs approved in Scotland?

The member raises a substantial point. Under the reform mechanisms for the SMC, which we reformed last year, we encourage drugs companies to have informal discussions with the SMC before they make a formal application. That allows them to negotiate on cost and price and so, when the formal application is made, the chances of success are substantially enhanced.

One of the other reforms that we made is that when a drug is rejected, there is the opportunity for reasonably rapid resubmission. As I have said earlier and in public, I encourage the manufacturers of these particular drugs to reconsider the price and, at the earliest opportunity, offer the taxpayer and those who are suffering a better deal so that, hopefully, the drugs can be approved.

It is very important to do everything that we can to make sure that people who are suffering from cancer, particularly if they are in an end-of-life situation, have the fullest possible access to the drugs that they need to prolong their life. On Friday, I was at a meeting with a cancer sufferer who has a terminal diagnosis. I am absolutely of the view that, even if the drug extends life by only a few months, we should try as far as possible to make it available, because those extra few months with family and friends matter to the people who are affected and to their families.

Does the Cabinet secretary understand the extreme disappointment of such breast cancer patients, given that there is a £40 million new medicines fund for orphan and end-of-life medicines? Were these drugs reviewed using the patient and clinical engagement process? Does the cabinet secretary expect the whole of the £40 million to be spent on orphan and end-of-life drugs this year?

These drugs were reviewed under the PACE mechanism but were still turned down by the full SMC for the reasons that I have explained. I should emphasise that any patient who believes that they would benefit from the drug under the new system of independent application and review can still apply through and with the support of their clinicians to get access to the drug. Therefore although the SMC has made a general decision in the meantime that the drugs should not be generally available, people can still access them through what used to be called the independent patient treatment and review process.