Change free prescriptions to state pension age?

MeowWow

I have often wondered why prescriptions are free as soon as a person turns 60. A lot of people are still working at 60 so could afford to pay. I couldn’t get a bus pass until I reached state pension age. The same should have applied with prescriptions.

Still quite a lot of places that do offer free travel to over 60s though...in Merseyside you get free bus and also free train ( within a certain rDius(

MissAdventure

Would it include cancer patients, having to pay for their meds, or those with long term, chronic illness?

They won't take if from camcer patients...there would be uproar....when you get a diagnosis you apply for a medical exemption certificate straight away

MissAdventure

Who will decide?"

Well, everyone else, of course!
Everyone who has no experience or qualifications, everyone who feels they have managed their life "better", or overcome "worse"
, based on their own strength of mind.

Yep. Aided and abetted by media reports telling us all how much xyz costs the NHS, and the use of blunt instruments like BMI to determine whether people are obese, with no thought for muscle mass, different body shapes or metabolisms, medical conditions etc. Addictions are caused by all manner of things, by no means all connected with over-indulgence or weakness of character. 'Common sense' is rarely useful, and in the case of medical issues can be positively dangerous.

It makes perfect sense to educate people about harmful behaviour, but as we all know, advice changes regularly, and blaming people for the consequences of following one lot of advice when it's changed to another makes no sense at all.

We need to decide what the NHS should cover, eg should cosmetic treatments, fertility issues or lifestyle treatments be covered, or should we restrict free treatment to medical ones? Should we prolong life at all costs, or think about withdrawing treatment that is doing no more than that, and if so, at what point? I'm not making a case for or against anything, incidentally - just making the point that there should be fair and open rules, to avoid postcode lotteries, and that as medical advances come on stream we need to re-evaluate what can be covered and what can't. Some things can be done much more cheaply than before and other developments can be life saving (or enhancing) but prohibitively costly, so tough decisions - that awful phrase- have to be made, and must be made fairly.

Then we need to pay for it. As there will always be those who are unfortunate enough to need more treatment than others and those who are unable to pay contributions, those who are able should pay a bit more than they are likely to need, which is the insurance element of the deal. If that means raising taxes, so be it.

"The alternative for individuals is to move to Scotland (or Wales)".

When free prescriptions for all were introduced in Scotland, it was discovered that the change was cost neutral as there was no longer a need to fund a whole organisation to check eligibility, issue and monitor season tickets etc. and Pharmacies benefit from having less admin work to do.

In Scotland qualified pharmacists are also able to issue prescriptions themselves for certain urgently required medications eg antihistamines. I do not know if this applies UK wide but it can be a life saver in an emergency.

Who will decide?"

Well, everyone else, of course!
Everyone who has no experience or qualifications, everyone who feels they have managed their life "better", or overcome "worse"
, based on their own strength of mind.

Poppyred

Agree, although I think asthma and Hrt meds should be free.

I'm an asthmatic and I asked why asthma isn't included in free prescriptions as it is life threatening. I was told there are too many of us!

Doodledog

MissAdventure

So, meds for people with something like, say, copd.
Should they be charged for people who still smoke?

Obese people, with associated problems... the list is endless.

Should they get free prescriptions?

Yes, I think so. I think it would be a very dangerous move to start refusing treatment to people deemed to have caused their illness. Where does it stop? Obesity is not always connected to idleness, and even if it were, do we treat fitness enthusiasts who are injured or disabled playing sport? Or people with industrial illnesses who could have known they were at risk? Travellers who pick up tropical diseases? Where does it stop?

I think it would be a very dangerous move to start refusing treatment to people deemed to have caused their illness.

Absolutely.

Healthy people who look after themselves and don't indulge in unhealthy pursuits, drugs, food or drink, still contract the same diseases and illnesses as those that do.

So who is going to decide that person A is responsible for their illness but not person B - for the same disease?

I do believe that those who over-indulge in alcohol or food - or are addicted to drugs, need 'dealing' with, but not by punishing them to the extent that they may not be able to afford their required medication.

I think that most over indulgencies are the result of some sort of mental-health problems, or the sheer pressure of possibly living a life where they run ever faster just to stay in the same position, economically. Perhaps dealing with that would be more productive.

Calendargirl

Dickens

Yes, I see what you mean about paracetamol.

How many do GP’s prescribe for people suffering chronic pain? If it is many more than the 32 limit you can buy in one go, it just seems pointless having a limit in the first place.

I know it’s because it is dangerous to take too many, but still seems pointless.

When my GP suggested paracetamol for chronic pain control - knowing the restriction on the number of tablets allowed per purchase - I asked him for some sort of certification that could be presented at a pharmacy to legitimise the purchase of a larger quantity.

As posters have pointed out - they are fairly cheap, especially if you get supermarket own-brand tablets. I was quite prepared to pay for them because I'm in a position to do that.

However, it appears there is no mechanism nor system for GPs to authorise this type of medication purchase . So he put the paracetamol on my regular medication list - 100 per month. I expect paracetamol costs more on the NHS than it does OTT - but then, maybe it would be costly to institute a system such as the one I suggested to him - who knows?!

Also, it occurs to me that if someone intends to harm themselves with an overdose - then 32 tablets would certainly do just that. And, if they are just careless - as little as anywhere between 2 - 10 tablets could be fatal.

As you say, it all appears rather pointless.

Anyone who is determined to deliberately overdose will simply go from chemist to chemist until they have the number of tablets they think they need. Incidental overdose could be countered by dramatic warnings on the front of the package, and government health-warnings in the media.

That makes sense. I get iron tablets on prescription, which often raises eyebrows, but they are much stronger than OTC ones, as my levels are very low. I would have to take lots of OTC ones to have an impact, and if someone with normal levels took mine it could be dangerous.

It's not always about cost.

Regarding paracetamol calendargirl I can tell you how it works for me.

Living with chronic pain for over 30 years it has long been established my body doesn’t tolerate strong pain medication /opioids or medication such as amitryptilene.

For many years I have been prescribed and continue to take 8 paracetamol a day along with maximum dose of slow release ibuprofen plus a stomach protector. My prescriptions are for 56 days of each. Blood testing to check liver and kidney function occurs regularly.

The rationale presented to me (I didn’t ask for paracetamol on prescription, this came from a GP) was it’s important I have a regular dose and a trawl round pharmacies wasn’t the best way to achieve this.

Of course I have no idea why others are prescribed this drug, can just explain my own situation.

Agreed. I dislike the way people are accused of culpability- it’s yet another way we are divided by propaganda.

I agree, but I'm pretty sure we'd hear about these people "rocking up" for a bag full of meds.

It's too complex to neatly compartmentalise as too old, too young, unfit, or any other reason to get, or not get help.

MissAdventure

So, meds for people with something like, say, copd.
Should they be charged for people who still smoke?

Obese people, with associated problems... the list is endless.

Should they get free prescriptions?

Yes, I think so. I think it would be a very dangerous move to start refusing treatment to people deemed to have caused their illness. Where does it stop? Obesity is not always connected to idleness, and even if it were, do we treat fitness enthusiasts who are injured or disabled playing sport? Or people with industrial illnesses who could have known they were at risk? Travellers who pick up tropical diseases? Where does it stop?

Dickens

Yes, I see what you mean about paracetamol.

How many do GP’s prescribe for people suffering chronic pain? If it is many more than the 32 limit you can buy in one go, it just seems pointless having a limit in the first place.

I know it’s because it is dangerous to take too many, but still seems pointless.

My meds would cost nearly half of my weekly earnings !

GrannyGravy13

No, I agree with MissAdventure

I agree too. Some people would do without meds. Leave it as it is.

There is a medical exemption certificate available (regardless of age and income) for those with some medical conditions:

www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/check-if-you-have-nhs-exemption/medical-exemption-certificates

Sadly cigarettes are legally available to any adult that wants them. And the treasury must rake in a fair sum on taxes on tobacco.

If the state isn't prepared to ban them then I think it will have to pay for the consequences. Do you remember when smokers could get nicotine patches on the NHS. Maybe they still can.

How far do you go to determining who is eligible and for what reason? It's a tricky one.

So, meds for people with something like, say, copd.
Should they be charged for people who still smoke?

Obese people, with associated problems... the list is endless.

Should they get free prescriptions?

But why should we the general tax paying public be denied this benefit? I'm sure for many people they are a life saver.

Why when there are so many other places that the public purse is mis-spent.

Maybe cut the incredible pensions that MPs enjoy once they are no longer in office. You can be sure they won't need a winter allowance.

Stop sending our money abroad.

It's too easy to rob the British tax payer instead of really looking to see how the portfolio of the UK should be managed.

No, nor do I, but am thinking of things like iron tablets which can be bought OTC, or possibly fertility treatment, or acne creams. It's really difficult to suggest things that should possibly go on a restricted list, as of course it will hurt some patients, which I wouldn't want to see either, but set against life-saving treatments I can see how cuts to those things could be argued for.

I don't agree at all with potentially taking away anyone's meds, and I think it's devisive, however it would be done. (Which it won't be, I'm sure)

MissAdventure

Perhaps people on disability benefits should get free prescriptions, but of course, one person could be on two meds, and another on twenty two.
So, a means test to check how many meds someone has?

It's unworkable.

It would be wrong to means test drugs IMO. Tax should be high enough to cover them. I can see that there will be the euphemistically named 'tough decisions' when it comes to which drugs can be prescribed, but whatever is available should be available to all.

MissAdventure

Working doesn't necessarily equate to being able to afford things these days.

It certainly doesn't.
My DH was made redundant at 59. Trying to get another job at that age was an eye-opener and those available were minimum wage. Then ill health. Leave free prescriptions for 60 + alone.

Perhaps people on disability benefits should get free prescriptions, but of course, one person could be on two meds, and another on twenty two.
So, a means test to check how many meds someone has?

It's unworkable.