Prescription charges for the over sixties

Doodledog

nadateturbe

I can see no reason why those over 60 who haven't reached retirement age and are still working shouldn't pay, just as those under 60 do.
But I do think £9 is far too much per item.

What about people who are not working? There are a lot of people who choose not to work (and I don't mean the unemployed, or those looking after the sick) but still claim the things that others have paid into the system to provide. Should they get free prescriptions when they are 60, whilst those who have worked all their lives continue to pay?

Which things do they claim? People have to be in receipt of certain benefits to claim other freebies?

nadateturbe

Doodledog I'm not sure how the system operates as I live in NI, but I was under the impression that if you were of working age and not claiming benefits you had to pay for prescriptions.
It just seems logical that if people are paying it should be all those working and not just under 60s. And stop paying when you retire.
Kali yes often £9 is very little compared to the actual cost, but it's still a lot of money for many people. Much too high imo. And there are times when the actual cost is less than £9.

You are correct.

growstuff

Doodledog

nadateturbe

I can see no reason why those over 60 who haven't reached retirement age and are still working shouldn't pay, just as those under 60 do.
But I do think £9 is far too much per item.

What about people who are not working? There are a lot of people who choose not to work (and I don't mean the unemployed, or those looking after the sick) but still claim the things that others have paid into the system to provide. Should they get free prescriptions when they are 60, whilst those who have worked all their lives continue to pay?

Which things do they claim? People have to be in receipt of certain benefits to claim other freebies?

Pensions, free Oyster cards, prescriptions, health care, education, etc etc.

I am not saying that they should or shouldn't - just questioning why nadaturbe thinks that those over 60 who are working should pay, and wondering whether she also thinks that those who are not working should also pay.

Thanks growstuff.

nadateturbe

Doodledog I'm not sure how the system operates as I live in NI, but I was under the impression that if you were of working age and not claiming benefits you had to pay for prescriptions.
It just seems logical that if people are paying it should be all those working and not just under 60s. And stop paying when you retire.
Kali yes often £9 is very little compared to the actual cost, but it's still a lot of money for many people. Much too high imo. And there are times when the actual cost is less than £9.

Sorry - to answer your question, yes, in England, if you are not claiming benefits (or suffering from particular conditions) you pay for prescriptions whether you are paying tax or not. Most people do pay, at least until they are 60.

Not everyone not working is retired, though. Some of those not working will be in receipt of benefits (eg the unemployed, those too ill to work and at least some of those who can't work work because they are caring for others who are ill), so won't pay for prescriptions, rightly, IMO. There may be other groups that I have overlooked, but the same would apply if they are not working because they are unable to do so.

I am asking about those who are not working because they choose not to. You say if people are paying it should be all those working and not just under 60s. And stop paying when you retire, which excludes this group, and I was just asking whether you think that they should pay or not, (whether they are older or younger than 60), or should they still get prescriptions free, as you imply? What about those who can't afford to retire and continue to work until 70+? Should they continue to pay both tax and prescription charges when others don't?

I agree that £9 is a lot for many people to find, particularly when some conditions require multiple prescriptions. Even a pre-paid 'season ticket' is a lot for someone on minimum wage. and it seems to me unfair that someone in this situation should have to pay when others don't.

I know I am always banging this drum, but if we all (individually) paid more tax we could all get things like prescriptions free, and there could be a better education system and higher pensions for everyone.

If someone chooses not to work, they should (IMO) be charged a regular contribution - perhaps paid for by their partner, or out of whatever other funding allows them to afford not to work.

IMO it is not fair to have a system that compels someone on minimum wage to contribute when someone better off can just 'opt out' of paying tax, and 'opt in' to the NHS etc. Everyone should contribute unless they are unable to, in which case they should be treated exactly as though they have paid in.

I pay for a prescription card, is about 100 pounds and as they say, all you can eat!

The pharmacists say that every day they get asked by people which medicines can they possibly do without in order to lesson the charge.

That seems very wrong to me, and I sincerely hope that the government put in mitigation to help those on a lower income, if they push ahead with this scheme, although at present it is only suggested that charges are to be made up to 66.

Whitewavemark2

The pharmacists say that every day they get asked by people which medicines can they possibly do without in order to lesson the charge.

That seems very wrong to me, and I sincerely hope that the government put in mitigation to help those on a lower income, if they push ahead with this scheme, although at present it is only suggested that charges are to be made up to 66.

Well I hope that that Pharmacist gives them the information they need to claim help through the NHS low income scheme its a means tested scheme but helps with prescription and dental costs for people not on benefits but have a low income.
www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/nhs-low-income-scheme

Obviously the reason why free prescriptions start at 60 is that it hasn't been changed since women's pension age was 60 and to meet the equality act men could get certain concessions that pension age women got such as free prescriptions, bus passes and pension credit

Doodldog The people of working age who choose not to work because they don't want to (maybe they don't have to or just have some other reason) could only receive benefits if they are prepared to be subjected to means testing and work capability tests. They would have to invent some reason for not working (ie lie). If they're not prepared to do that, they won't receive benefits and, therefore, won't be eligible for free prescriptions. It really isn't as you originally claimed.

*If someone chooses not to work, they should (IMO) be charged a regular contribution - perhaps paid for by their partner, or out of whatever other funding allows them to afford not to work.

IMO it is not fair to have a system that compels someone on minimum wage to contribute when someone better off can just 'opt out' of paying tax, and 'opt in' to the NHS etc. Everyone should contribute unless they are unable to, in which case they should be treated exactly as though they have paid in.*

You're somewhat confused about this issue.

Whitewavemark2

The pharmacists say that every day they get asked by people which medicines can they possibly do without in order to lesson the charge.

That seems very wrong to me, and I sincerely hope that the government put in mitigation to help those on a lower income, if they push ahead with this scheme, although at present it is only suggested that charges are to be made up to 66.

There is a scheme for people on a low income, which is currently set at something over £14,000 a year (not sure of the actual figure).

You’re lucky. We have to pay though it is reduced after you turn 65. I think in most countries you would have to pay. Sense of entitlement going on here.

growstuff

Whitewavemark2

The pharmacists say that every day they get asked by people which medicines can they possibly do without in order to lesson the charge.

That seems very wrong to me, and I sincerely hope that the government put in mitigation to help those on a lower income, if they push ahead with this scheme, although at present it is only suggested that charges are to be made up to 66.

There is a scheme for people on a low income, which is currently set at something over £14,000 a year (not sure of the actual figure).

i'd never herd of this.
is it printed on the back of the prescription form ?
someone above said that people under 60 who are not working due to looking after others who are ill/disabled, do not pay for prescriptions.
this is incorrect. they do have to pay.
it is only those in receipt of means tested benefits who get free prescriptions, under 60.
so the others, eg carers, have to live on £67 a week.
until they get state retirement pension. then the carers' allowance is withdrawn.

It should probably all be linked to state pension age. When you start receiving your SP, you would qualify for free prescriptions, bus passes and so on. The assumption being that up to then you are still working.

welbeck Google NHS low income scheme. It's not that well advertised and is a bit of a hassle to apply for, but worth it if you're eligible.

It could realistically be applied at state pension age without too much argument. Our state pension rates are low compared to the rest of Europe so there's a good argument for keeping the pension arrangements as they are currently.

The prescription service and conditions have long needed an overhaul. The prescribing budget is always huge and overspend, a large number of prescriptions are wasted as they are not taken, the system allows hoarding, the clinical conditions which are allowed free scripts is illogical, and the controversy surrounding free scripts for over the counter meds has raged for ages as well as free scripts for over 60s Whole system review needed. I speak as a retired nurse and nurse prescriber.

Excellent post Big Bertha1, totally agree. Speak as someone who works in primary care.

Until I was 60 I paid for a yearly prescription card. It's the only way I could afford the amount of tablets I have to take. I have been ill since I was 29 now 63. I was widowed 17 years ago. Because I have no name of my illness as it's a variety of neurological problems. And yes there are thousands like me with illness that hasn't been label. My neurologist has other patients like me but not with exactly the same symptoms.

Because of no label I have never been able to claim any benefits or work as I don't know how I am going to be everyday.

My husband was only 47 when he died what he left is long gone. And only my inheritance from my mother keeps me going. But by the time I get my state pension my savings will be gone.

For people like me if I had to pay for every item I have to take I couldn't have the tablets. I dread to think what would happen. It's terrifying thought.

And before anyone thinks I will get a good pension. I will only get the basic and even though my husband paid into the system for 30 years and paid a lot . I have been told I will get 43p a week from what he paid.

Those of you who think we shouldn't get free prescriptions at 60 I hope you never get so ill you need tablets for you everyday existence. And it must be nice being you with no money worries.

I am sorry to hear your situation whiff. It illustrates why it is ridiculous to give comfortably off pensioners free prescriptions etc.

DH and I have to take daily medication too but we could afford buy the prepayment card and I see no reason why we shouldn't.

I received 'free' prescriptions at 60. I reached State Pension Age at 64 1/2.

It seems to me this is the slow journey to privatise the NHS by the back door. There are already minor procedures being charged for, (ie removing ear wax which Mum aged 91 had to pay £50 for recently at Boots) which used to be done by your GP surgery. Anyone who voted Tory surely must have realised this was going to happen, despite their vehement denials at election time.

Ilovecheese

So this is the thin end of the wedge towards privatised health care. Not really a surprise.

Ridiculous statement. People with long term illness should be exempt, from payment although 90% of England do not pay for prescription charges, and not all benefit recipients get free medication. There is a low income scheme for the NHS which can help some people. The actual cost of many prescriptions are much greater than a nine pound cap, and you can get a 3 month pre payment certificate which reduces the cost. Which I will enter into my budget when the time comes. As for those free bus passes, why not a charge as National Express do, £10 per year, would raise money, those on low incomes stay free. We cannot expect free everything, as the population continues to rise, something needs to be done to raise extra money to pay

Doodledog

nadateturbe

Doodledog I'm not sure how the system operates as I live in NI, but I was under the impression that if you were of working age and not claiming benefits you had to pay for prescriptions.
It just seems logical that if people are paying it should be all those working and not just under 60s. And stop paying when you retire.
Kali yes often £9 is very little compared to the actual cost, but it's still a lot of money for many people. Much too high imo. And there are times when the actual cost is less than £9.

Sorry - to answer your question, yes, in England, if you are not claiming benefits (or suffering from particular conditions) you pay for prescriptions whether you are paying tax or not. Most people do pay, at least until they are 60.

Not everyone not working is retired, though. Some of those not working will be in receipt of benefits (eg the unemployed, those too ill to work and at least some of those who can't work work because they are caring for others who are ill), so won't pay for prescriptions, rightly, IMO. There may be other groups that I have overlooked, but the same would apply if they are not working because they are unable to do so.

I am asking about those who are not working because they choose not to. You say if people are paying it should be all those working and not just under 60s. And stop paying when you retire, which excludes this group, and I was just asking whether you think that they should pay or not, (whether they are older or younger than 60), or should they still get prescriptions free, as you imply? What about those who can't afford to retire and continue to work until 70+? Should they continue to pay both tax and prescription charges when others don't?

I agree that £9 is a lot for many people to find, particularly when some conditions require multiple prescriptions. Even a pre-paid 'season ticket' is a lot for someone on minimum wage. and it seems to me unfair that someone in this situation should have to pay when others don't.

I know I am always banging this drum, but if we all (individually) paid more tax we could all get things like prescriptions free, and there could be a better education system and higher pensions for everyone.

If someone chooses not to work, they should (IMO) be charged a regular contribution - perhaps paid for by their partner, or out of whatever other funding allows them to afford not to work.

IMO it is not fair to have a system that compels someone on minimum wage to contribute when someone better off can just 'opt out' of paying tax, and 'opt in' to the NHS etc. Everyone should contribute unless they are unable to, in which case they should be treated exactly as though they have paid in.

Would love to know how people can opt out of paying tax, possibly those too young to be paying tax, or people working under the radar working for cash in hand, who should be paying tax. As a retired Nurse, I am still paying tax on my pension, but would rather this went into a separate pot specifically for the NHS to provide social care if needed.

You can also get one for 32.50 for three months, which may be easier for many people .

Good post Lins. I wonder where we apply to opt out of tax.