Yesterday, Sunak announced that the economy is pointing in the right direction.

I had asthma as a child and lost about a third of my lung capacity from scarring. It returned post-50 when I had to pay for my NHS sprays until I retired when they became free. Asthma is a life-threatening disease (the famous heart surgeon Dr Christian Barnard died from an asthma attack when he did not have his spray to hand) but it was unfortunately never added to the list of NHS medicines provided free regardless of age. Bevan intended the NHS to be free at the point of delivery but we have regressed.

They are all essential (I wouldn’t take unnecessary medication), but because the NHS deems that the anti-convulsive drugs should be foc everything else I am prescribed follows suit - which makes no sense to me. None of the other medications I take qualify for exemption so why should they also be given out without payment? There must be many, many people in England who get all their prescribed medicines free just because, like me, they suffer from one condition which qualifies for exemption from prescription charges. I think that is very wrong and it is an example of how the NHS wastes money. It would be very easy for the dispensing pharmacist to note the drug(s) on the prescription which qualify for exemption, put a cross in the box against them to signify ‘no charge’, and collect payment for the rest.

Anyway, I have had quite enough of this topic and the comments I have received, so will not respond further.

Germanshepherdsmum

^If you don’t want the drugs don’t collect the prescription ^.

You were quite happy to accept something you disapproved of.

That shows you have no understanding of how vital all my medications are. My GP did not accept private patients.

Eventually my exemption became automatic. I do not lie. Kindly stop inferring that I do.

You said
If the system decides that a particular drug should be given out foc, so be it - but not anything and everything else the taker of that drug is prescribed for whatever unrelated condition they may have. It is an appalling waste of money. No wonder the NHS is in trouble if it sets such ridiculous rules. I receive seven different items each month, only two of them related to epilepsy, and that has been the case for many years. But you can’t opt out of these free medicines
But you can opt out
You could change your. GP . You can not take any drugs. You can ask for a private prescription.
You now seem to be saying the drugs are essential.
You may not be lying but you certainly aren't explaining clearly exactly what your complaint is with an NHS system which has kept you healthy for years.

If you don’t want the drugs don’t collect the prescription .

You were quite happy to accept something you disapproved of.

That shows you have no understanding of how vital all my medications are. My GP did not accept private patients.

Eventually my exemption became automatic. I do not lie. Kindly stop inferring that I do.

I have had asthma since a child (diagnosed aged 6), since then I have needed medication daily (preventer & reliever inhalers, tablets every day, along with frequent long courses (3 months at a time) of steroids.

These keep me alive, once I left school and until I reached 60 I paid for every single prescription apart from pregnancy exemption months which all in England get automatically.

Not all life limiting/threatening conditions qualify for free prescriptions.

Germanshepherdsmum

I can tell you quite categorically that at some point - many years ago but I can’t remember when - I did not need to apply for exemption certificates any longer . The exemption became automatic.

So what you are saying is you disapprove of the NHS supplying you with free medicines, you blame the NHS for doing this, but you were quite happy to accept something you disapproved of, although you had the financial wherewithal to pay for the drugs.
Anyone can opt out of any NHS treatment. If you don't want the drugs don't collect the prescription. If you want to be treated privately notify your GP.
Otherwise I suggest you stop knocking a system you seem to have been quite happy to use. Although the only time anyone is entitled to long term free prescriptions is when they reach 60. Before that a certificate has to be applied for.

I can tell you quite categorically that at some point - many years ago but I can’t remember when - I did not need to apply for exemption certificates any longer . The exemption became automatic.

Germanshepherdsmum

When I was 17, and a student, I was given an exemption certificate which had to be renewed annually, but the requirement for an exemption certificate ended before I became a high earner. It became, and remains, automatic for people suffering from certain conditions. ‘Going private’ would not have been an option when I was younger and later, when exemption was automatic, I was happy with the continuity of care which my GP provided.

No it doesn't
From the link I posted

Your certificate will normally last for 5 years and then you will need to renew it.

Remember NHS prescriptions are free if you’re aged 60 or over.

Renew your certificate
You need to speak to your GP or doctor to apply for a new certificate.

We'll send you a reminder around one month before your current certificate expires. It's your own responsibility to check that your certificate is valid when you claim free NHS prescriptions

Private healthcare insurance usually excludes chronic conditions for good reason, because the course of the illness is expensive and unpredictable. For example, the worst case scenario with epilepsy is an unpredicted fit resulting in coma and brain damage. Therefore to pay privately it is up to the individual to bear all the costs of medication and appointments on an ongoing basis. If you fundamentally don’t believe in the NHS providing universal healthcare, the option to make a donation to the amount your healthcare under the NHS costs is always available.

When I was 17, and a student, I was given an exemption certificate which had to be renewed annually, but the requirement for an exemption certificate ended before I became a high earner. It became, and remains, automatic for people suffering from certain conditions. ‘Going private’ would not have been an option when I was younger and later, when exemption was automatic, I was happy with the continuity of care which my GP provided.

Whitewavemark2

GSM you could go private and pay for your drugs. You seem to hint that you could afford it.

I don’t think it’s a question of being able to afford it, those that can afford it should pay more so that a better service can be provided. Those that afford to pay are either going to spend more on holidays/luxuries or inheritance instead

Germanshepherdsmum

I have had epilepsy since age 17 and must take drugs to control it for life. The system is such that since my diagnosis I have not paid for any prescribed medicines - not just those which control my epilepsy but those I am prescribed for asthma, high blood pressure, depression, any antibiotics. You name it, I have had it completely fre since I was 17, despite having been a high earner. That is totally wrong. If the system decides that a particular drug should be given out foc, so be it - but not anything and everything else the taker of that drug is prescribed for whatever unrelated condition they may have. It is an appalling waste of money. No wonder the NHS is in trouble if it sets such ridiculous rules. I receive seven different items each month, only two of them related to epilepsy, and that has been the case for many years. But you can’t opt out of these free medicines - I asked but you can’t because that’s the system and you have no comply with it. Lord knows how much I should have paid over the years, but wasn’t allowed to.

You evidently then chose to fill in a form claiming your prescription charges because of a chronic condition (epilepsy)and continued to do so when one of your exemption certificates ran out.
I don't understand how you can blame the NHS because you claimed a benefit you didn't need, but chose to receive.
www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/check-if-you-have-nhs-exemption/medical-exemption-certificates

U have been prescribed expensive biologics to treat RA for 12 years. Prior to this prescription i took pres ription disease modifiers which eventually stopped working. The first biological cost £1200 amonth. The current replacement very much less.
I retired on health grounds at 62, 12 years ago. It was a grim time but I was prescribed the gold standard treatment. My consultant wants to maintain her record of never having a patient confined to a wheelchair
I live alone, independently. The meds make this possible. I’d have to sell my house if I didn’t get it on prescription.. it’s cost effective for the nhs to treat me

GSM you could go private and pay for your drugs. You seem to hint that you could afford it.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have had epilepsy since age 17 and must take drugs to control it for life. The system is such that since my diagnosis I have not paid for any prescribed medicines - not just those which control my epilepsy but those I am prescribed for asthma, high blood pressure, depression, any antibiotics. You name it, I have had it completely fre since I was 17, despite having been a high earner. That is totally wrong. If the system decides that a particular drug should be given out foc, so be it - but not anything and everything else the taker of that drug is prescribed for whatever unrelated condition they may have. It is an appalling waste of money. No wonder the NHS is in trouble if it sets such ridiculous rules. I receive seven different items each month, only two of them related to epilepsy, and that has been the case for many years. But you can’t opt out of these free medicines - I asked but you can’t because that’s the system and you have no comply with it. Lord knows how much I should have paid over the years, but wasn’t allowed to.

The NHS is a form of national insurance.

No insurance decides who to pay or not to pay (in this ca se provide a service) to fully paid up members.

It doesn’t work like that.

Your drug regime seems very odd?

DH is on a number of drugs and every month re-orders what he needs. He can choose from the prescribed list. In fact he decided for a few months to stop one and was quite able to do so.

No one is forcing anything onto him.

You don't like those 'universal benefits' do you, Katie59?

It's not benefits that are impoverishing the country, it's the highly inequitable distribution of wealth. The most money is going to those who are least likely to spend it into the domestic economy when it is money spent into the economy that is most likely to drive growth.

I have had epilepsy since age 17 and must take drugs to control it for life. The system is such that since my diagnosis I have not paid for any prescribed medicines - not just those which control my epilepsy but those I am prescribed for asthma, high blood pressure, depression, any antibiotics. You name it, I have had it completely fre since I was 17, despite having been a high earner. That is totally wrong. If the system decides that a particular drug should be given out foc, so be it - but not anything and everything else the taker of that drug is prescribed for whatever unrelated condition they may have. It is an appalling waste of money. No wonder the NHS is in trouble if it sets such ridiculous rules. I receive seven different items each month, only two of them related to epilepsy, and that has been the case for many years. But you can’t opt out of these free medicines - I asked but you can’t because that’s the system and you have no comply with it. Lord knows how much I should have paid over the years, but wasn’t allowed to.

The current system does “claw back” pensions with taxation, the issue then becomes high tax rates to do that, we already have one of the highest taxation rates, having universal benefits makes that worse.

We already have means testing for many purposes and a persons income or wealth is not so difficult to establish.

Chocolatelovinggran

I'm a fan of Polly Toynbee and agreed with her that free prescriptions etc for all pensioners without reference to income seems ill conceived. However, there are two points to consider. One is that means testing incurs costs - in people to administer it, inform people, check claims and police potential infringements.
Secondly, as the article accepts, the older people with the most demanding jobs ( not writing articles for The Guardian) will simply go sick, and be unable to work. The bill for benefits to this group will outstrip any gains made on the pension budget. Dickens is right, a more thoughtful long term plan is required and I don't see any evidence of anyone with power making such a plan.

Also - re free prescriptions - there's this to consider.

I don't know what the figures are but an awful number of pensioners appear to be 'on' an awful lot of drugs once they reach the age where we are designated "elderly"!

If you couple that with any chronic conditions that require 'for-life' medication, it could end up with a bit of a hefty cost which would penalise those with persistent diseases and illnesses.

Those who are neither poor nor rich - the middle-income bracket would (as is often the case) bear the brunt of these charges. Unless a ceiling were imposed on the bill in order to avoid financially 'punishing' those with either chronic or congenital (or both) conditions.

That would incur yet another layer of admin which, also, by its very nature, causes delays and 'hiccups' in the system.

So IMO it does make more economic sense to give with one hand and claw back - in taxation - with the other.

Whitewavemark2

The U.K. as it appears to the New York Times

While everything this piece highlights is true, I find it really ironic coming from the country whose economic dogma we embraced in the 1970s and which we follow even now. A country in which that dogma has produced even worse life expectancy and poverty for many of its citizens and where the cost of medical treatment can bankrupt you.

I'm a fan of Polly Toynbee and agreed with her that free prescriptions etc for all pensioners without reference to income seems ill conceived. However, there are two points to consider. One is that means testing incurs costs - in people to administer it, inform people, check claims and police potential infringements.
Secondly, as the article accepts, the older people with the most demanding jobs ( not writing articles for The Guardian) will simply go sick, and be unable to work. The bill for benefits to this group will outstrip any gains made on the pension budget. Dickens is right, a more thoughtful long term plan is required and I don't see any evidence of anyone with power making such a plan.

Freya5

Whitewavemark2

The U.K. as it appears to the New York Times

Ha, the New York Times, no lover of the UK, ever. Think they should look much closer to home, re everything they say on this bit of trash.

What is it that you think they have said about the UK that isn’t demonstrably true Freya5?

Whitewavemark2

The U.K. as it appears to the New York Times

Ha, the New York Times, no lover of the UK, ever. Think they should look much closer to home, re everything they say on this bit of trash.

I’ve just returned from “down under” after visiting relatives, they don’t have a particularly good view of their state health services. Charges are quite high, often means tested, pensions are means tested as well.

nanna8

Mind you, they can’t talk as regards health services. Fine if you can pay or have insurance. They have Biden and Trump. You know what ? I think I’d prefer Sunak.

Bet you are glad you don’t live here though!!