NHS cutting back on prescriptions?
Discussion
Jimboka said:
It's about time TBH
Relative is a doctor receptionist. Benefits claimant gets paracetamol on prescription because it's free. So prescription + a load of paperwork for something that's 20p at the supermarket .. nuts
Agree. There are some scrounging parasites out there who would even go to A&E to get something for free if the doctor refused. Even if the alternative was to pop down the chemist and spend less than a pound of their own money.Relative is a doctor receptionist. Benefits claimant gets paracetamol on prescription because it's free. So prescription + a load of paperwork for something that's 20p at the supermarket .. nuts
Aston Traveller said:
Coeliacs have to pay the same prescription charges as everyone else. They are not free.
A big problem is that parents with more than one child will not cook a separate meal for the child who is not coeliac. So use the gluten free one for both children or all the family! This is clearly wrong but not sure how it can be stopped. Theoretically the GP is only supposed to prescribe only what the coeliac would eat per month but I've seen scripts for huge amounts of foods.
Prescription charges are £8 per item are they not? So if they do pay it's no way cheaper than a supermarket! Aren't doctors supposed to issue scripts per item? So 1 packet of pasta per script? Would soon stop this. A big problem is that parents with more than one child will not cook a separate meal for the child who is not coeliac. So use the gluten free one for both children or all the family! This is clearly wrong but not sure how it can be stopped. Theoretically the GP is only supposed to prescribe only what the coeliac would eat per month but I've seen scripts for huge amounts of foods.
One simple way to save money on prescriptions is to revisit the and rewrite the exemptions list.
Currently diabetics, patients with thyroid disorders and many others get all their script items for free. If the free items were just for those items directly connected to the primary exemption reason then there must be some savings? For example a diabetic gets insulin or other medication free as it is essential. They will also get non-related items free also - pain killers for a bad back, antihistamines for hay fever.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting.
SD.
Currently diabetics, patients with thyroid disorders and many others get all their script items for free. If the free items were just for those items directly connected to the primary exemption reason then there must be some savings? For example a diabetic gets insulin or other medication free as it is essential. They will also get non-related items free also - pain killers for a bad back, antihistamines for hay fever.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting.
SD.
BoRED S2upid said:
Prescription charges are £8 per item are they not? So if they do pay it's no way cheaper than a supermarket! Aren't doctors supposed to issue scripts per item? So 1 packet of pasta per script? Would soon stop this.
Someone posted a factoid that the vast majority (85%?) of prescriptions are not paid for. JagLover said:
Murph7355 said:
Someone posted a factoid that the vast majority (85%?) of prescriptions are not paid for.
ExactlyThe girl opposite me at work is Gluten intolerant. It would never even occur to her to get her groceries on the NHS.
I also wonder what the percentage is now between people who contribute via taxes and NI towards the NHS, and those who have never paid anything.
Most of the list makes sense, more or less.
Maybe people in areas lacking a big supermarket well stacked with FreeFrom options who meet a low income threshold could be offered a voucher or something and pointed towards the appropriate online ordering setup, I can readily believe there are a few people that would experience real hardship if they lost the prescribed stuff, but not the majority. Seems relatively simple to take care of those people while freeing ourselves of the cost of the NHS being a particpant in the purchase and delivery of the stuff.
The one that's got me confused though is fentanyl. Surely there are only a small number of people on it and those are folk in really dire straits, my understanding is that it's a stronger opiate and therefore generally relevant, useful/necessary, definitely not available over the counter… why is it on the list?
Maybe people in areas lacking a big supermarket well stacked with FreeFrom options who meet a low income threshold could be offered a voucher or something and pointed towards the appropriate online ordering setup, I can readily believe there are a few people that would experience real hardship if they lost the prescribed stuff, but not the majority. Seems relatively simple to take care of those people while freeing ourselves of the cost of the NHS being a particpant in the purchase and delivery of the stuff.
The one that's got me confused though is fentanyl. Surely there are only a small number of people on it and those are folk in really dire straits, my understanding is that it's a stronger opiate and therefore generally relevant, useful/necessary, definitely not available over the counter… why is it on the list?
The cost is less important than the mindset IMO. I agree with jj that £100m is a small %age (< 0.1%) where the NHS is concerned (though I disagree on the priority of actually cutting it).
But telling people it is acceptable to get such things on the NHS when there are acceptable alternatives that they have a choice of is just asking for them to become dependent.
And once they have that mindset, the first port of call will inevitably be "can I get that from the govt".
People need to be turning to the govt as the very last resort. I believe many do, but when I hear the bleating about removing stuff like this, or child benefit etc etc, and see stats where over 50% of the population are in receipt of some sort of state hand out, plus see the size of our deficit and debt, I think we are truly screwed u less people start to think fundamentally differently about what they can lean on the govt for.
This applies to all areas of public expenditure IMO. We have become a country that seems to focus far more on its rights than its responsibilities. Which is not good.
But telling people it is acceptable to get such things on the NHS when there are acceptable alternatives that they have a choice of is just asking for them to become dependent.
And once they have that mindset, the first port of call will inevitably be "can I get that from the govt".
People need to be turning to the govt as the very last resort. I believe many do, but when I hear the bleating about removing stuff like this, or child benefit etc etc, and see stats where over 50% of the population are in receipt of some sort of state hand out, plus see the size of our deficit and debt, I think we are truly screwed u less people start to think fundamentally differently about what they can lean on the govt for.
This applies to all areas of public expenditure IMO. We have become a country that seems to focus far more on its rights than its responsibilities. Which is not good.
Jimboka said:
It's about time TBH
Relative is a doctor receptionist. Benefits claimant gets paracetamol on prescription because it's free. So prescription + a load of paperwork for something that's 20p at the supermarket .. nuts
Yep, a woman next door to us was going on about how she "kicked off" at the chemist because she was given the unbranded version of calpol for her child...Relative is a doctor receptionist. Benefits claimant gets paracetamol on prescription because it's free. So prescription + a load of paperwork for something that's 20p at the supermarket .. nuts
Of course, its exactly the same stuff but 1/4 of the price.
She is exempt from prescription charges.
Its quicker to just buy it and probably cheaper if you factor in petrol/bus fare
shed driver said:
One simple way to save money on prescriptions is to revisit the and rewrite the exemptions list.
Currently diabetics, patients with thyroid disorders and many others get all their script items for free. If the free items were just for those items directly connected to the primary exemption reason then there must be some savings? For example a diabetic gets insulin or other medication free as it is essential. They will also get non-related items free also - pain killers for a bad back, antihistamines for hay fever.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting.
SD.
I thought the whole reason certain conditions got everything free was because it is recognised they have wide ranging effects. Currently diabetics, patients with thyroid disorders and many others get all their script items for free. If the free items were just for those items directly connected to the primary exemption reason then there must be some savings? For example a diabetic gets insulin or other medication free as it is essential. They will also get non-related items free also - pain killers for a bad back, antihistamines for hay fever.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting.
SD.
How is the line drawn at what is considered 'directly connected to the primary exemption'? For example if someone has diabetes which leads to complications with their eyes or skin should they then have to pay for the medication for those other conditions, or would that be covered? And who would get to decide if the new illness is a direct complication of the exempted one...
I thin it would just further complicate the situation... probably leading to some kind of quango that employs more paper shufflers to draw up and enforce the rules.
I wonder if it would be better to have those under 18 or over 70 get things free and have everyone (and I do mean everyone) else pay a nominal fee...
Edited by VolvoT5 on Thursday 30th March 21:31
jjlynn27 said:
VolvoT5 said:
I wonder if it would be better to have those under 18 or over 70 get things free and have everyone (and I do mean everyone) else pay a nominal fee...
Why should over 70 get things for free? They cost too much as it is Edited by VolvoT5 on Thursday 30th March 21:31
.
Imagine this scenario. You don't need to because it's true. Find yourself 57 mins to watch!
An old (really old!) guy, John, 98, who up until this point was fit for his age,finds it a struggle now to walk yards whereas he was walking 4 miles regularly. He needs a heart valve.
I can see your thoughts now... Operating on a 98 year old? You would probably say he's had his life wouldn't you? Can the NHS afford this? Good job you weren't on the team assessing him!
Open Heart surgery at high cost on the NHS, ffs!
Valve came from the USA at a cost of something like 12 grand - total cost around £30k ...yeah I just saw your jaw drop!
But it's cost effective. YOU will have to watch to find out why it is.
Valve and other nec equipment came in a box more suitable for a Evo big bore exhaust system and a nurse struggles to get the box through the doors!
One of the doc team says, and this is important for people like you Lynnee, 'We can't be ageist!'
Op goes ahead. (98 year is awake throughout procedure!) Catastrophe, he has a stroke near end! Rushed to another hospital to remove the clot on his brain. Still awake, surgeons at next hosp go in through his groin (feeling queezy yet Lynnee?) and probe goes all way up to his brain. They remove clot.
Oh f. just watch it. It's fascinating. Unless you're the queezy type.
There is a good bit about the other end of the age scale with a young black girl who needs bone marrow transplant - she has sickle cell disease - to make the balance that age should not be a consideration.
YOU really should watch it! As should all f. ageists. Might change your prejudices against the old (one day you might get there!).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kh6RSDpmf8
PS there are a couple other cases intertwined as usual for programmes to keep you watching, but it's fairly obvious re the 98 yr old and young girl.
Edited by dandarez on Thursday 30th March 22:44
jjlynn27 said:
Why should over 70 get things for free? They cost too much as it is .
+1.But no smiley face.
My parents are in their mid eighty's and I am 60 this year, but I still feel the free NHS is unsustainable for the elderly.
And please don't get me started on those that have not contributed to the cost of the NHS!
Pop into any garden centre with a café at lunch time and you will see a sea of grey hair. If they can afford lunch out, they can also pay for prescriptions.
Being over 65 years old does not entitle you to have bus travel, TV licence, prescriptions, etc, on top of your state pension, by those in the population paying tax on everything they do.
I will use the UNSUSTAINABLE word, as that is what it is.
Storer said:
jjlynn27 said:
Why should over 70 get things for free? They cost too much as it is .
+1.But no smiley face.
My parents are in their mid eighty's and I am 60 this year, but I still feel the free NHS is unsustainable for the elderly.
And please don't get me started on those that have not contributed to the cost of the NHS!
Pop into any garden centre with a café at lunch time and you will see a sea of grey hair. If they can afford lunch out, they can also pay for prescriptions.
Being over 65 years old does not entitle you to have bus travel, TV licence, prescriptions, etc, on top of your state pension, by those in the population paying tax on everything they do.
I will use the UNSUSTAINABLE word, as that is what it is.
NHS spends £30k, yeah £30k on heart valve fitment to 98 year old.
BUT it was cost effective. How? Watch it.
Re your comment above about TV licence. Something else you are out of touch with.
Free only to 75 or older!
Edited by dandarez on Thursday 30th March 22:50
dandarez said:
Lynnee, what is it with you? You F. AGEIST GIT!
Imagine this scenario. You don't need to because it's true. Find yourself 57 mins to watch!
An old (really old!) guy, John, 98, who up until this point was fit for his age,finds it a struggle now to walk yards whereas he was walking 4 miles regularly. He needs a heart valve.
I can see your thoughts now... Operating on a 98 year old? You would probably say he's had his life wouldn't you? Can the NHS afford this? Good job you weren't on the team assessing him!
Open Heart surgery at high cost on the NHS, ffs!
Valve came from the USA at a cost of something like 12 grand - total cost around £30k ...yeah I just saw your jaw drop!
But it's cost effective. YOU will have to watch to find out why it is.
Valve and other nec equipment came in a box more suitable for a Evo big bore exhaust system and a nurse struggles to get the box through the doors!
One of the doc team says, and this is important for people like you Lynnee, 'We can't be ageist!'
Op goes ahead. (98 year is awake throughout procedure!) Catastrophe, he has a stroke near end! Rushed to another hospital to remove the clot on his brain. Still awake, surgeons at next hosp go in through his groin (feeling queezy yet Lynnee?) and probe goes all way up to his brain. They remove clot.
Oh f. just watch it. It's fascinating. Unless you're the queezy type.
There is a good bit about the other end of the age scale with a young black girl who needs bone marrow transplant - she has sickle cell disease - to make the balance that age should not be a consideration.
YOU really should watch it! As should all f. ageists. Might change your prejudices against the old (one day you might get there!).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kh6RSDpmf8
PS there are a couple other cases intertwined as usual for programmes to keep you watching, but it's fairly obvious re the 98 yr old and young girl.
You seem very excited. Calm down. Imagine this scenario. You don't need to because it's true. Find yourself 57 mins to watch!
An old (really old!) guy, John, 98, who up until this point was fit for his age,finds it a struggle now to walk yards whereas he was walking 4 miles regularly. He needs a heart valve.
I can see your thoughts now... Operating on a 98 year old? You would probably say he's had his life wouldn't you? Can the NHS afford this? Good job you weren't on the team assessing him!
Open Heart surgery at high cost on the NHS, ffs!
Valve came from the USA at a cost of something like 12 grand - total cost around £30k ...yeah I just saw your jaw drop!
But it's cost effective. YOU will have to watch to find out why it is.
Valve and other nec equipment came in a box more suitable for a Evo big bore exhaust system and a nurse struggles to get the box through the doors!
One of the doc team says, and this is important for people like you Lynnee, 'We can't be ageist!'
Op goes ahead. (98 year is awake throughout procedure!) Catastrophe, he has a stroke near end! Rushed to another hospital to remove the clot on his brain. Still awake, surgeons at next hosp go in through his groin (feeling queezy yet Lynnee?) and probe goes all way up to his brain. They remove clot.
Oh f. just watch it. It's fascinating. Unless you're the queezy type.
There is a good bit about the other end of the age scale with a young black girl who needs bone marrow transplant - she has sickle cell disease - to make the balance that age should not be a consideration.
YOU really should watch it! As should all f. ageists. Might change your prejudices against the old (one day you might get there!).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kh6RSDpmf8
PS there are a couple other cases intertwined as usual for programmes to keep you watching, but it's fairly obvious re the 98 yr old and young girl.
Edited by dandarez on Thursday 30th March 22:44
No, I wouldn't approve that. Not at all. If he had any decency he'd refuse that procedure, knowing that those 30k would be better spent on younger people. Selfish
. I'd go one step further, I'd find out who approved that and fire them. In an ideal world where there is never ending money/resource supply; sure, why not.
Age should be a consideration. Not only they wasted 30k on heart surgery but they've put additional strain on NHS as he'll need a lot more money spent on him.
dandarez said:
Storer said:
jjlynn27 said:
Why should over 70 get things for free? They cost too much as it is .
+1.But no smiley face.
My parents are in their mid eighty's and I am 60 this year, but I still feel the free NHS is unsustainable for the elderly.
And please don't get me started on those that have not contributed to the cost of the NHS!
Pop into any garden centre with a café at lunch time and you will see a sea of grey hair. If they can afford lunch out, they can also pay for prescriptions.
Being over 65 years old does not entitle you to have bus travel, TV licence, prescriptions, etc, on top of your state pension, by those in the population paying tax on everything they do.
I will use the UNSUSTAINABLE word, as that is what it is.
NHS spends £30k, yeah £30k on heart valve fitment to 98 year old.
BUT it was cost effective. How? Watch it.
Re your comment above about TV licence. Something else you are out of touch with.
Free only to 75 or older!
Edited by dandarez on Thursday 30th March 22:50
When it comes to NHS spending on the elderly or the young, it is not straight forward. It has to depend on the likely success of the treatment and the longevity that expenditure (£ for £) will give.
It will not be a popular thought that deciding how much a life is worth paying for from the state purse, but this will be an increasingly difficult decision to take (and will be needed much more frequently).
I have personal family experience of the ability to keep someone 'alive' but seeing that person become something he never was during the years I knew him. Sometimes it is better to say 'it is their time'. I know my family feel that.
As I have said before, the ability to cure all cancers (which will come soon) has got to be the point when we have to rethink expenditure on the elderly. On it's own it could see life expectancy jump by 10 years, with the associated burden on the NHS.
shed driver said:
One simple way to save money on prescriptions is to revisit the and rewrite the exemptions list.
Currently diabetics, patients with thyroid disorders and many others get all their script items for free. If the free items were just for those items directly connected to the primary exemption reason then there must be some savings? For example a diabetic gets insulin or other medication free as it is essential. They will also get non-related items free also - pain killers for a bad back, antihistamines for hay fever.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting.
SD.
Currently diabetics, patients with thyroid disorders and many others get all their script items for free. If the free items were just for those items directly connected to the primary exemption reason then there must be some savings? For example a diabetic gets insulin or other medication free as it is essential. They will also get non-related items free also - pain killers for a bad back, antihistamines for hay fever.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting.
SD.
How would that be policed?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff