Look, we had a review at the start of this Assembly term because of issues that Members around the Chamber have raised about the apparent inequalities in access, and people’s inability to understand the system. And, to be fair, the system wasn’t an easy one to understand for clinicians or indeed for members of the public. Following the review, we’ve implemented all of the 27 recommendations that came up, and it’s very clear now the clinician has to support the individual patient funding request to go to a review.

Now, I can’t comment on the individual circumstance that the Member is directly engaged with. Across the system, more than seven in 10 applications for medicines under the IPFR process are agreed. I think it would be helpful if we had yet another conversation with you about what’s happened in this case and about how the health board's IPFR process does and doesn’t work, and about the level of clarity in the explanation provided by both the health board and the clinician about any reasons for refusal and why that is. The awful truth is, from a whole-system point of view, you understand there will be times when there is a refusal to provide a treatment on the national health service. It is always a much more difficult matter to be the individual, to be told by one person in our healthcare system, ‘I think this is what you need’, and to be told overall by the system, ‘You still can’t have it’. I’m happy to sit down to try and understand what that looks like with your constituent, but I really think we need to go back to the clinicians making choices together with the health board, and have real clarity in the decision-making process.