NHS cutting back on prescriptions?
Discussion
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!!!!)Murph7355 said:
So can you point to the page that explains the cost/benefit of free provision of gluten free products? Or IVF?
If our government decides to invest money in helping people procreate who have medical / genetic issues that are reducing the chances of it happening naturally, are they creating an even worse issue for future generations where that condition has now spread further into the gene pool, requiring even more NHS funding ?? Tankrizzo said:
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.
Yes I do. I am T2 and was given an exemption card that lasts 5 years on diagnosis. They have just renewed it for the next 5 years
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think the 'imbeciles' are the ones who thing that money grows on trees and who can't explain where the money will come from to fund the NHS.Or in other words, your explanation does not support your claim. As expected.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th March 15:31
All this, the antibiotics, the IVF, the gluten free food, in the grand scheme of things are an irrelevance.
We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
jjlynn27 said:
All this, the antibiotics, the IVF, the gluten free food, in the grand scheme of things are an irrelevance.
We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
Indeed, so do you think the NHS as it currently stands is 'sustainable'?We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
sidicks said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think the 'imbeciles' are the ones who thing that money grows on trees and who can't explain where the money will come from to fund the NHS.Or in other words, your explanation does not support your claim. As expected.
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.
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.
And that solves the problem, does it? 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.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm glad you pointed me at those links as I'd already read them.My eyesight may be failing me (I don't get tests on the NHS
) but I cannot see where the absolute cost of IVF over the years to the NHS is stated. I also cannot see where the benefits are set out that justify those costs. All I can see are recommendations for changes to the current guidelines that will cost the NHS MORE money each year. I don't need to know that increasing service provision will cost MORE. This is part of what makes the NHS unsustainable, and your linking to NICE documents like those above does the exact opposite of proving that a sensible job is being done on those sort of assessments.
Focussing on IVF, the cost of looking after kids properly is horrendous. I am not saying only the wealthy should have kids - nature makes it impossible to means test procreation. However, if someone cannot naturally conceive and cannot afford the cost of IVF to mitigate that, how are they going to afford looking after the kids for the duration? Life deals us all bum hands at times. The NHS should not be there to try and level the genetic playing field (as I think countdown notes).
From what I can see, the NICE papers express no relative merits of providing this service against others, nor against available funds. Which is the root of the problem - it's all well and good suggesting updated guidelines that move IVF provision from 81% NHS funded to 93% NHS funded, but how should that be paid for? And why is that shift a necessary or even good thing? Doesn't matter how much Googling I do, or reading of reports etc, it appears the erudite ones creating them seem incapable of answering these questions
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.?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.
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
All this, the antibiotics, the IVF, the gluten free food, in the grand scheme of things are an irrelevance.
We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
Indeed, so do you think the NHS as it currently stands is 'sustainable'?We have more people and they are living longer. It is a simple as that.
The cost of healthcare provision for a man who is 89 is three times as much as for someone who is 70.
It's nine times as for someone who is 50. 32% of hospital costs are spent for 1% of the population. As Trumpster would say, they are big, not so beautiful numbers.
The UK is near the top of every obesity table. Not only that this influences outcomes of procedures, but a quick google says that £4.2b is spent on obesity-related treatments. Add in
Saving 100m on IVF is a distraction.
As midengined mentioned we have few options.
Spend more money to keep the levels of service.
Spend same money with reduced levels of service.
Set an age at which we stop providing 'free' service.
Where the money is going to come from, is irrelevant. It could be through general taxation, it could be through insurance. My experience of insurance based healthcare (outside the UK) is that there are two winners. Health professionals and insurance companies.
I do think that people without this experience have a very distorted picture of the cost of healthcare provision.
sidicks said:
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.
And that solves the problem, does it? 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.
jjlynn27 said:
As it currently stands, no.
As midengined mentioned we have few options.
Spend more money to keep the levels of service.
Spend same money with reduced levels of service.
Set an age at which we stop providing 'free' service.
Agreed. Thanks.As midengined mentioned we have few options.
Spend more money to keep the levels of service.
Spend same money with reduced levels of service.
Set an age at which we stop providing 'free' service.
jjlynn27 said:
Where the money is going to come from, is irrelevant. It could be through general taxation, it could be through insurance. My experience of insurance based healthcare (outside the UK) is that there are two winners. Health professionals and insurance companies.
I do think that people without this experience have a very distorted picture of the cost of healthcare provision.
Increasing taxation can only get you so far. Far more realistic to review how and what the services can (and should) provide!I do think that people without this experience have a very distorted picture of the cost of healthcare provision.
Countdown said:
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..."Of course if covered on my Vitality of course that'll be the first port of call
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff