Homeopaths to pay £120,000 bill for failed legal challenge against NHS

British Homeopathic Association argues health service is prejudiced against remedies it banned for lack of evidence

The NHS is looking to claim back all £120,000 in costs it incurred defending a legal challenge from homeopath groups challenging its ban on the non-evidence based remedies.

Arguing that the taxpayer should not be made to pick up the bill for “tap water masquerading as medicine” NHS England said it will seek full reimbursement after judges dismissed the homeopaths’ challenge in June.

The British Homeopathic Association (BHA) was ordered to pay NHS England’s costs by the High Court and said it intended to raise the money by crowd-funding from patients who felt they had benefited from the remedies.

Homeopathic remedies were among a host of “low-value” treatments banned by the NHS, following a consultation, as part of a drive to reduce costs and prioritise medicines and procedures where the evidence is best.

The chief executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens has said that the remedies were “at best a placebo” and that scarce NHS funds could be sent elsewhere.

This led to a legal challenge on the basis the negative statements about homeopathy had prejudiced the public consultation, and that the evidence had been too difficult for the public to understand. While an appeal was granted it was rejected after four days of legal arguments.

Mr Stevens said of the cost recovery: “The NHS has to be a wise steward of taxpayers’ money, and sometimes that means taking on vested interests.

“This case was a striking example where taxpayers were in essence being asked by the homeopathic industry to pay for something akin to tap water but masquerading as medicine.

“So we welcome the common sense judgement by the courts that those who brought this failed legal challenge should have to pick up the tab for the NHS’ legal costs.”

Homeopaths claim that “like cures like”. Remedies are created by dissolving a material believed to cause a certain affliction in water, then diluting that solution many times past the point at which any molecules of the original substance remain. The weaker the solution, the more powerful the remedy, it is said.

At the High Court ruling, Mr Justice Supperstone did not pass judgement on whether the procedures worked, but said NHS England was well placed to do so.

A BHA spokesperson said the group had undertaken the judicial review with full knowledge that it would be liable for costs if it failed.

“For the BHA it was a risk worth taking to tackle NHS England’s consultation process which the charity felt was unlawful and would stop patients, particularly those chronically ill and elderly, from getting the homeopathic medicines they depend upon through the NHS,” they added.

“The BHA will be paying all agreed legal costs from donations raised through crowdfunding for the case, other donations received directly for our legal challenge and from legacies received from grateful patients, most of whom benefited from NHS homeopathic services in the past.”