Would you pay higher taxes for NHS drugs for all? Poll discussion

Katykat

Well, I've posted on this subject previously. I've even written to the Health Minister ( who didn't reply) .Most people in this country get free prescriptions - I'm not one of them by the way, I pay for mine, despite being a nurse for 38 yrs- but I fail to see why some people get them free. In my opinion it should be the medicine that should be judged as being free, not the person who is is prescribed for. Example. Joe Bloggs has epilepsy, he earns £40,000 PA, he gets all his medicines free, including paracetamol. Joe Smith has asthma and cancer. he earns £13000 PA, but he has to pay for all his asthma inhalers, all his cancer drugs ( if his local PCT agrees he can have them of course) and all his painrelief, antibiotics etc etc. Joe Jones has nothing wrong with him that a good dose of work wouldn't cure. he gets everything free too. Do you see what I mean? And please dont tell me this doesn't happen. IT DOES

moneysaving_pharmacist

Katykat wrote: »

Well, I've posted on this subject previously. I've even written to the Health Minister ( who didn't reply) .Most people in this country get free prescriptions - I'm not one of them by the way, I pay for mine, despite being a nurse for 38 yrs- but I fail to see why some people get them free. In my opinion it should be the medicine that should be judged as being free, not the person who is is prescribed for. Example. Joe Bloggs has epilepsy, he earns £40,000 PA, he gets all his medicines free, including paracetamol. Joe Smith has asthma and cancer. he earns £13000 PA, but he has to pay for all his asthma inhalers, all his cancer drugs ( if his local PCT agrees he can have them of course) and all his painrelief, antibiotics etc etc. Joe Jones has nothing wrong with him that a good dose of work wouldn't cure. he gets everything free too. Do you see what I mean? And please dont tell me this doesn't happen. IT DOES

Er, Joe Smith would probably be exempt on tax credit grounds. If not, he could buy a pre-payment certificate. But I take your point about prescription charges being unfair and irrational. I believe they are being reviewed in England some time soon.

moneysaving_pharmacist

wensmcg wrote: »

a lot has to do with liability. When you recieve a medicine the manufacturers carry the liability for the storage because the wholesaler/supplier/pharmacy all have to adhere to how medicines are stored. If you were to store your tablets on a radiator this could inactivate the ingredients and thus if they were reissued they might not work, or worse they might break down into something dangerous. Who would then carry the liability for that? The manufacturers wouldn't because there could be no control over how the medicine had been stored.

Also the pharmacist has a legeal and ethical responsibility to ensure that the medicines they supply is in appropriate condition and you couldn't guarantee that if it had left the premises.

Many people store medicines in the kitchen or bathroom, and high up. warmth light and humidity are the worst things for medicines as they increase the breakdown of most drugs wihtin the medicine. Meidicnes should be stored somewhere dry, dark and below 25 degrees in most cases and obviously somewhere inaccessible to children ofr safety reasons.

I admit its frustrating to destroy so much - it breaks my heart to see it, but currently there isn't anything legally we can do about the recycling. Its still better to only order medicines you really need.

I hope that clarifies the issue a little
Regards

And one other issue (although perhaps not applicable in hospitals) is that the contractor has already been paid for the drugs used. So a pharmacy buys a box of 21 Augmentin for £9. The pharmacy then dispenses this against a prescription which is then submitted for payment. The pharmacy eventually gets paid £10 for supplying the box of Augmentin, plus another £1.50 or so in professional fees and allowances. Now if the Augmentin were returned and used again the government would be paying twice for the same thing, which they wouldn't like. But all this is hypothetical anyway, for the reasons wensmcg has outlined above.

SunnyBrighton_2

The term Epilepsy covers situations where it IS caused by diet - it happened to my daughter when at 13 she started drinking diet coke - removal of those toxin-laden soft drinks, along with homeopathic treatment, cured her.

The medications don't 'cure' anything - they suppress the symptoms, which is a difference we need to be clear about. Paracetamol may stop you feeling the pain of a headache, but it doesn't 'cure' the headache.

Nothing is clearcut - but it would seem that diet has a huge effect on our health. For my and my family's health, I go with what works, not what the latest (or any) 'scientific' report says!

DavyBoy wrote: »

Are you telling me that Epilepsy is caused by diet, and that taking Aspirin will reduce grand and petit mal fits...... and Diet and Aspirin are the cure?
These medications exist not only to cure, ........
........ please don't assume all drugs are bad, and all problems are diet induced!

HugoSP

Like others on here I find it incredible that certain drugs that are essential for treating serious conditions are refused on the NHS, whereas medicines such as Calpol that simply releaves cold symtoms in children are freely available. You can buy this in pharmicies cheaply anyway. Why clutter up the NHS system with this one?

Also, it strikes me that funding decisions of this nature are made without consideration for the social costs of refusal of certain treatments. These range from intense nursing care to helping support families of the deceased.

However I do have some sympathy with doctors' refusal to continue treatment of those who will not help themselves. Consider Patient A who refuses to give up smoking despite being diagnosed with a respiratory illness, and who may be receiving treatmant, verses Patient B who cannot do any more than he is doing to combat his illness but cannot get treatment.

Errata

Apparently GPconsultations have increased by 40% during the last 10 years. Surely the nation isn't 40% sicker than it was.

Katykat

Errata, could have something to do with immigration. We suddenly have an influx of people who previously had to pay for their treatment in their own country. Now they get it free. And a lot of this really is free, because they have not paid in to the NHS. They get their pills and operations and then they go back , leaving space for another influx. I know I sound bitter, and some may think it doesn't happen, but unfortunately it does.

sluggy1967

Katykat wrote: »

Errata, could have something to do with immigration. We suddenly have an influx of people who previously had to pay for their treatment in their own country. Now they get it free. And a lot of this really is free, because they have not paid in to the NHS. They get their pills and operations and then they go back , leaving space for another influx. I know I sound bitter, and some may think it doesn't happen, but unfortunately it does.

You are talking rubbish. Asylum seekers (for example) are NOT automatically entitled to free prescriptions (for example). They are subject to the same criteria as everyone else.

supersavershal

sinizterguy wrote: »

Sorry got my points all mixed up. It wasnt insulin, it was some other drug which was clearly not meant to be given at that time. If you really want the details, I will get it for you when my fiance returns from work. She is a doctor and she has to fix it or take the flak from patients and their relatives for blunders such as those.

Either way I have seen and heard of serious incompetencies. Yes, not all of them are incompetent, but its not a gamble I want to take with my life or any of my families. Simple as.

The last blunder was a nurse who pulled out a surgical drain from a patient. The patient consequently had to have two further surgeries in an attempt to fix the mistake - which were both unsuccesful and the patient died. Routine surgery - went very well. Killed after the surgery due to imcompetent care. As said, not on me.

Sorry have been away.I hear what you are saying.But compare the amount of incompetant drs being brought before the GMC with the amount of nurses being brought before the NMC.It clearly shows there are a greater number of incompetant drs, the only difference being the doctors cover up for each other and more often than not blame the nurses.When a mistake is made by a nurse it is reported on an IR1 immediatly, with many nurses reporting themselves.Drs will lie and cheat and cover up.I have many times had to sort out the huge incompetancies of junior drs, they will prescribe dangerously high doses of meds, leave very sick patients untreated and fail to answer emergency bleeps.Most junior drs on the peadiatric wards are only there so they can complete their gp rotation so they dont care.I have had to stand over drs doing procedures and tell them what to do as they havnt got a clue.But saying all that there are also many excellent doctors as their are nurses, you get bad people in all areas of work, you shouldnt generalise.I pride myself on being an excellent nurse and have put many hours in making sure I am competant and up to date.We dont get paid a fortune but im happy with my lot but when people like you slate us it is demoralising and makes you think why bother.

Katykat

Sluggy, I'm not talking about asylum seekers, I mean genuine european residents. And Errata didn't say it was about free prescriptions, anly that consultations were up by about 40%. If you mean the criteria of needing to be resident in this country for 3 months before being entitled to NHS care, think again. There is no way to police this, we cant ask for passports when they register with a GP and even if we could, passports are not stamped now anyway. As long as you have a european pasport, you can get NHS services.