NHS cutting back on prescriptions?

[paulrockliffe]

jjlynn27 said:

It doesn't work like that at all. They have (very strict) guidelines of what they should and shouldn't 'offer'.

It can't be that strict can it, given that when I take my son to the doctors for an ear infection I get prescribed two antibiotics, just in case. One to treat the infection and one to use if that one doesn't work, they'd rather rack up the cost of the unused medication than have me take him back in again for a 2 minute appointment. This has happened 4 times in the last year.

They wouldn't do that if the second prescription came out of their own budget.

[Countdown]

Evanivitch said:

And incredibly difficult when you have a child that wants to eat "normal" food, not to mention that we eat a lot of gluten foods because they are incredibly convenient. You're also dramatically cutting down on the carb options for a child, effectively reducing them to rice and potatoes.

I think for adults it is reasonable to expect them to cover the choice of buying gluten free alternatives, but the free provision should remain for minors.

$64m question - why should it remain "free" when it's possible to buy it without prescription?

[Loyly]

Some doctors are obviously ahead of the curve. In my local GP's office there is a sign on the wall kindly asking people to buy their own Paracetamol as it costs the NHS four times as much money to prescribe as it does to buy over the counter.

This was my first GP visit in about 7 years. I gad a sinus infection that was also causing a histamine rash. The doctor told me to buy some antihistamine tablets when I collected my antibiotic prescription. I wouldn't have dared to ask him to prescribe me something I could buy without a prescription, I have my pride.

[alock]

Loyly said:

Some doctors are obviously ahead of the curve. In my local GP's office there is a sign on the wall kindly asking people to buy their own Paracetamol as it costs the NHS four times as much money to prescribe as it does to buy over the counter.

Tesco paracetamol 30p. 4 times that is £1.20. Current prescription is £8.40.

Does that mean the NHS are making £7.20 profit on each paid prescription of paracetamol or is someone just making up numbers?

[essayer]

alock said:

Tesco paracetamol 30p. 4 times that is £1.20. Current prescription is £8.40.

Does that mean the NHS are making £7.20 profit on each paid prescription of paracetamol or is someone just making up numbers?

https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/formulary/bnf/current/4-central-nervous-system/47-analgesics/471-non-opioid-analgesics-and-compound-analgesic-preparations/paracetamol/paracetamol

"Paracetamol 500 mg, net price 32-cap pack = £1.27, 100-cap pack = £3.97"

Who gets the the difference between £8.40 and £1.27 ?

[RTB]

The NHS will get the difference, which may help cover all those eligible for free prescriptions getting paracetomol for free, thereby costing the NHS £1.27 a pop

[Hoofy]

Is anyone really gonna use that prescription? Presumably it is people getting free prescriptions who will use it. How much the NHS has to pay for the drugs is the issue, isn't it?

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

How did we get to 1/2b? I was under impression that (in 2011) the IVF was costing NHS 79m.

Apologies, the 400m figure was an estimate on the cost of implementing updated NICE guidelines...finding the actual amount spent on IVF is proving challenging.

Evanivitch said:

And incredibly difficult when you have a child that wants to eat "normal" food, not to mention that we eat a lot of gluten foods because they are incredibly convenient. You're also dramatically cutting down on the carb options for a child, effectively reducing them to rice and potatoes.

I think for adults it is reasonable to expect them to cover the choice of buying gluten free alternatives, but the free provision should remain for minors.

Looking after kids is fecking difficult regardless. I don't see why the NHS should be picking up the tab for wanting an easier ride of it.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Proving what exactly? Despite that mass of paperwork we still have an unsustainable model.

[jjlynn27]

paulrockliffe said:

jjlynn27 said:

It doesn't work like that at all. They have (very strict) guidelines of what they should and shouldn't 'offer'.

It can't be that strict can it, given that when I take my son to the doctors for an ear infection I get prescribed two antibiotics, just in case. One to treat the infection and one to use if that one doesn't work, they'd rather rack up the cost of the unused medication than have me take him back in again for a 2 minute appointment. This has happened 4 times in the last year.

They wouldn't do that if the second prescription came out of their own budget.

If second prescription came out of their pocket, no they probably wouldn't as different system would be in place. The system where you'd be moaning about having to go twice to a doc for the same thing and paying 2 times. Obviously, all that while complaining how long you have to wait, 'why they couldn't give me two antibiotics at the same time, as my visit to them, obviously, costs more than antibiotics themselves!'.

There are no 2 minutes appointments. And if they did exists would you really want one? I wouldn't.

[JagLover]

Moonhawk said:

I don't understand this either.

Back when this stuff was hard to get hold of and niche - yes. But these days, gluten free food is available in major supermarkets, high-street shops and on the internet.

Exactly

But once you bring in a handout people will defend it. Spokesperson in the article above still wanting free food on the NHS

[wiggy001]

Evanivitch said:

And incredibly difficult when you have a child that wants to eat "normal" food, not to mention that we eat a lot of gluten foods because they are incredibly convenient. You're also dramatically cutting down on the carb options for a child, effectively reducing them to rice and potatoes.

I think for adults it is reasonable to expect them to cover the choice of buying gluten free alternatives, but the free provision should remain for minors.

Sorry but I don't buy this argument. A quick Google tells me that Tesco sell 500g pasta penne for between 30p and £1.28 while the gluten gluten free equivalent is £1.20. A loaf of gluten free bread is £1.40 (I'm sure I pay over a quid for a loaf).

So it's not like gluten free food is 5 times to price or hard to find, so why does it have to be on prescription?

My wife can't eat eggs... can we get a prescription for an alternative at the taxpayers expense? Of course not...

[Oceanic]

Just add some balance, Gluten free food, can be as much 5 or 6 times more expensive to purchase than non-Gluten equivalents.

[sidicks]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not 'unsustainable', just that it requires every increasing funding well beyond the rate of inflation and well beyond the available budget...

[Countdown]

Oceanic said:

Just add some balance, Gluten free food, can be as much 5 or 6 times more expensive to purchase than non-Gluten equivalents.

AFAIK there isn't any GF food which is "essential", other foods are available. Would it be reasonable for the patient to have something else instead of the NHS paying for them to have GF food?

[Tankrizzo]

Pieman68 said:

As a diabetic I get free prescriptions. I currently am on 4 different medications which I get FOC through medical exemption

When having pain issues with my ankles the doctor offered me ibuprofen on prescription. I was also offered corsodyl on prescription through the dentist.

I politely declined and said that I would purchase them myself. Part of the issue is that the medical profession offer these quite openly.

I have also been given prescription (when I used to pay for them) to be told by the chemist that there is a cheaper option to buy over the counter

I'm afraid there is an issue with some in the medical profession as it's not their money, and this is something that has to change!

Slightly OT - do you have a medical exemption card? I've been T1 for 26 years and I never had a card, and got fined recently for ordering prescriptions without it.

[sidicks]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You made the claim that it wasn't 'unsustainable'. It seems reasonable therefore to ask you on what basis you are making that claim and how you expect to fund ever increasing costs...

[paulrockliffe]

jjlynn27 said:

paulrockliffe said:

jjlynn27 said:

It doesn't work like that at all. They have (very strict) guidelines of what they should and shouldn't 'offer'.

It can't be that strict can it, given that when I take my son to the doctors for an ear infection I get prescribed two antibiotics, just in case. One to treat the infection and one to use if that one doesn't work, they'd rather rack up the cost of the unused medication than have me take him back in again for a 2 minute appointment. This has happened 4 times in the last year.

They wouldn't do that if the second prescription came out of their own budget.

If second prescription came out of their pocket, no they probably wouldn't as different system would be in place. The system where you'd be moaning about having to go twice to a doc for the same thing and paying 2 times. Obviously, all that while complaining how long you have to wait, 'why they couldn't give me two antibiotics at the same time, as my visit to them, obviously, costs more than antibiotics themselves!'.

There are no 2 minutes appointments. And if they did exists would you really want one? I wouldn't.

Sorry, no this isn't the case at my GPs. I can ring up in the morning, tell the receptionist what's happening and the GP calls me back between 11:30 and 12:30 (this is how they screen appointments that aren't necessary out I presume). If I need to go in for two minutes to get a different antibiotic for a condition that the doctor has already seen my son about then I'll be asked to pop in and the doctor will see us in between appointments for the few minutes that it takes to see that the first treatment hasn't worked and prescribe another set of antibiotics. Similarly they may want to take a swap for analysis first, which is done the same way, in a few minutes. When results come back I get left a voicemail and asked to pop in anytime in the afternoon, again for a 2 minute appointment between normal slots.

Actually, I think last time the new prescription 'appointment' was done over the phone and the prescription sent to the pharmacy for collection.

There's no issue with either approach from a patient point of view, except that in the first scenario the taxpayer is funding twice as many drugs as is necessary and in the second a few people may be delayed by a few minutes.

[Murph7355]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So can you point to the page that explains the cost/benefit of free provision of gluten free products? Or IVF?

On the unsustainability point, come back to me when we have a budget surplus and have paid down 1.8tn or so of national debt.

We have an ever increasing life expectancy, an ever increasing population in need of aid and an ever increasing number of treatments being provided. Combine that with the budget holes we have and please explain to me in what normal world all if that is "sustainable". And at the end of all of that, people still die.

[anonymous-user]

baldy1926 said:

I have 3 tablets a day which if i dont take will land me in hospital. I forgot one day and was in hospital withing 20 hours so i can't not have then.
The doctors are reluctant to give me more than 1 months supply at a time so the cost soon mounts up.
My illness is not on the exemption list so i buy a yearly prescription it saves me loads i'm certain other people could do that if they could be bothered.

I have 2 prescriptions per month that I have to pay for. How does one get a yearly prescription?

[Sheepshanks]

sjg said:

Huge numbers of people don't pay for prescriptions - the over-60s, the under-16s (18 if in education), pregnant or had a baby in the last 12 months, and lots of medical exceptions or if you receive various benefits. So not surprising that people would take the free option instead of paying for over the counter.

I'm sure I saw recently that 90% of prescriptions are free. If that's true then it hardly seems worth the effort of charging for the other 10% - it probably costs more in admin.