OT - of interest to senior members

[Jethro_uk]

I still don't understand why they can't have a system whereby medicines specifically needed for lifelong conditions are exempt, but occasional medicines are still charged for. I have glaucoma - 4 types of eye drops for life. My wife has MS. 3 tablets plus daily plus a weekly injection for life. All of those should be exempt. Then, if we need an odd course of antibiotics (for example) we still pay.

They already exempt some conditions, so it wouldn't be a great stretch.

Personally I think prescription charges are a good idea - they highlight that nothing is "free", and hopefully discourage some waste.

I would be curious if there's been any research (as opposed to Daily Mail headlines) as to whether people who don't pay charges are any more wasteful than those who do.

[Tim Streater]

Hand it back *how* ?

Any what incentive do I have to do that (and I might decide I don't need a particular benefit), when 99.9999% won't be.

Make such benefits taxable - simples.

[polygonum]

I actually get my prescription every 56 days. But many others on the same medicine and equally stable have been stuck onto 28 day prescriptions.

NICE left a large gap to allow for long-term, stable medicines to be prescribed on a longer period basis. But my PCT's interpretation was near enough a blanket ban on > 28-day prescribing. And yet the MHRA has only last month issued specific advice that prescriptions for this medicine that it positively should be on an 84-day basis. Given the cost of handling two extra prescriptions (i.e. three one month prescriptions as recommended for many things by NICE and as endorsed by my PCT, against one three month prescription) is far greater than the cost of the medicine, the cost saving claim is ludicrous.

And my PCT was utterly unable to explain how to translate mandatory

28-day prescribing into advice for "take as needed" medicines. Not even to say that they were obviously not covered.

[Kim Bolton]

You should meet my mid-80s mother-in-law.

I don't really know the reason why - it might be something to do with WWII, but I'm not sure - but she has to have a 'stock' of everything. In the days when she could get out and do her own shopping, it included having a 'stock' of supermarket plastic bags. We estimate she had 20,000 of them, before SWMBO threw them out. She won't eat food in her freezer (because it's her 'stock') so lives on sandwiches. She's been prescribed a medicated cream for a skin condition, but won't use it as she doesn't have a 'stock' of it, so saves it up. No 'stock' item is ever used for anything.

But one day SWMBO came across her 'stock' of medication - most of it was out of date, and there was enough to fill a big bin liner. SWMBO costed it as being over £1000-worth of medications, all useless and wasted. and that was dished out on a monthly-prescription basis.

[Tim Streater]

Mmmmm. Nothing wrong with a 'stock' per se, but then it needs to be managed. Rotated, for one thing. SWMBO does that reasonably well with scoff in our freezer.

I have a one month stock of my meds (without which I'd be curled up in bed), because yo've only got to go away for a few days as it runs out, to risk being screwed. And by having a month's buffer I can arrange the restock day more to fit in with some other task, such as a supermarket shop.

But, when I got the first prescription I certainly didn't wait until I had a 'stock' before using it. I just restocked after three weeks instead of four until I'd built up a month's reserve.

Trouble with a MiL at that age is she prolly won't be trainable.

[Mike Barnes]

Nightjar :

That might be a good reason for not allowing the drugs to be collected more than a month in advance. But there's no reason not to issue a one- year prescription with monthly collections. This would make life easier for the doctor and the patient. Of course the prescription period wouldn't exceed the review period. I believe similar systems operate in some other countries.

[tim.....]

More that the normal nil tax band.

It has been presented wrongly by a PP, it isn't a benefit only received by well off pensioners, it is a benefit received by pensioners receiving the equivalent of "minimum wage", it is withdrawn from better off pensioners.

tim

[tim.....]

Bus passes tend to be self-means tested, I.e the better off pensioners who drive don't use them extensively.

means testing the fuel allowance would cost more that it saved unless you means tested it away from 80-90% of recipients. In which case it would be better abolished IMHO

tim

[tim.....]

There's as simple solution to that

Sell the damn thing and move somewhere smaller

I never understand the attitude of pensioners who insist on living in poverty in a million pound house, (and then complain about it!)

[tim.....]

No-one checks, it's self policed and your chances of being caught if you lie are minimal

tim

[Huge]

Write a cheque and send it to No.11 Downing Street.

[Huge]

Blimey, 20 people *have* signed it.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Older people tend to feel the cold more - hence the winter fuel payment.

As regards bus passes, it's difficult to calculate what they really do cost, as PT usually has plenty spare capacity outside rush hour.

[Tim Streater]

Who should I make the cheque out to?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Living in London, I find my Freedom pass very useful and it gets used several times a week. For journeys where it's more convenient for me to use PT than either of my cars. ;-) So to me it's really just a perk. However, lots get 'perks' of one sort or another from the state. In my case the Freedom pass costs the state very little in real terms as I only use it outside rush hour when there is spare capacity on PT. I'd be happy if they changed it back to only allowing it to be used outside rush hour.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

At the time they were introduced, many of the incurable optimists in government were talking about having state retirement age at 60 for everyone. How things change...

[polygonum]

There is now an electronic prescription mechanism which seems to allow this or something similar. And, at that level, it is a good idea. (The GPs only want to check levels once a year, and that mainly because they get an extra payment for doing so. So why six or twelve prescriptions?)

However, I do NOT like the way all these new prescription systems are tying you to a single pharmacy. There are three makers of my medicine in the UK. Many people report that the differences are significant despite them supposedly being therapeutically identical. There have often been supply difficulties. And when there are, I want the freedom to go round all local pharmacists, and internet pharmacies, to keep the the same make.

And my partner gets something prescribed that is not a standard UK product. She managed to source this from one pharmacy - if she goes elsewhere they supply different products so she has to go back to the same place again and again. But as that is inconvenient, we get almost everything else at a more local pharmacy! So we really do not want to be stuck with one pharmacy. (If she cashed in her prescription at the Sainsbury pharmacy, they would supply a special order product that costs a very large part of a thousand pounds. With an expiry date of one month. What she actually gets is a standard German product at a cost of, we think, less than a hundred.)

[polygonum]

I agree that there is unlikely to be a sudden upswing. Though maybe over time there would be more?

[polygonum]

Bus passes are not at 60 for everyone. Round here they are slowly creeping up.

[Bob Eager]

Of course, that depends on how much your GP prescribes at once. My GP is in the habit of prescribing 3 months' worth in one go.

I did actually buy a PPC, but 4 months later my GP informed me that under new regulations I qualified for free prescriptions for the next 5 years (and even sent me a pre-filled in forma for me to sign). I managed to get a pro-rate refund on the PPC!