NHS cutting back on prescriptions?

[Countdown]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39413915

Whilst it seems a drop in the NHS ocean I don't understand why GPs prescribe stuff that is available without prescription?

On R5L this morning a mum was insisting that her daughter should get Gluten-free pasta and bread on prescription otherwise she was being discriminated against in comparison to her friends.

[Countdown]

There's possibly a wider question here....

Some people's lives are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. be this a physical disability a mental disability...whatever. What level of equality should the State aim to achieve?

If you can eat other food apart from those containing Gluten than IMHO you shouldn't expect the State to pay for GF-free alternatives. It's bonkers.

[Countdown]

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.

The point that the R5l mum was making was that it was more expensive than non-GF food, whereas on prescription it was free for her.

[I wonder how many people who pay for their prescriptions choose to have it prescribed for them rather than buying it at the Supermarket]

[Countdown]

Murph7355 said:

<snip> 4x the figure noted could be saved by simply not funding IVF on the NHS. So together, half a billion a year stripped from the cost base.<snip>

That's what i was alluding to. At what point do we say "Sorry, we don't think that's something that the State should provide. If you want it you're on your own..."

[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?

[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?

[Countdown]

Sheepshanks said:

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.

That might be because the vast majority of people who pay decide NOT to bother with a prescription because they can get it cheaper from Tesco (sorry, I meant Waitrose!!!!)

[Countdown]

Mr Will said:

No, the imbeciles are the ones that think that taxation is a complicated subject only they are clever enough to understand.

I'd much rather see a 5% increase in my national insurance payments than an equivalent decrease in NHS funding. I'm not the only one either.

Why not look at what the NHS is spending money on at the same time to decide whether this is something that the State should fund or whether it's something the individual should pay for themselves.?

[Countdown]

kiethton said:

Bust as somebody who will likely need this service whats better....£xxk of IVF now or the total cost of IVF annually for life courtesy of the NHS should the 50/50 chance conspire against us? (genetic condition)

Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call

Sorry I'm not sure I understand the question.

Are you saying that, if you don't have IVF there's a 50:50 risk that any child you have may need permanent or long-term NHS care due to a genetic condition?

[Countdown]

Paul Dishman said:

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.

How would that be policed?

I think Shed Driver means they would pay for the non-related items (rather than get them free AS WELL as the diabetes medecines).....

Policing? Simple - the Exemption card would say "Diabetes medecine only"...would that not work?

My mum's elder sister is over 100+. She lives at home with her daughter and son-in-law but the amount of support the NHS provides in terms of medication and care is staggering. It must be the only organisation where being successful carries extra costs....

[Countdown]

Paul Dishman said:

Countdown said:

I think Shed Driver means they would pay for the non-related items (rather than get them free AS WELL as the diabetes medecines).....

Policing? Simple - the Exemption card would say "Diabetes medecine only"...would that not work?

...

No. It'd be a lot of aggravation for the pharmacy staff with no reward apart from the danger of assault. How would you determine exemption when, for example, if a diabetic patient has been another drug such as an ACE inhibitor to prevent long term consequences of diabetes or if he'd been prescribed the same drug because he'd developed hypertension

Shows my lack of understanding

How about the prescription says "Diabetes related" or "non diabetes related"?