On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:06:32 +0000, polygonum wrote:

On 15/02/2013 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:51, polygonum wrote:
On 15/02/2013 08:14, RJH wrote:


Govt claims 88% don't pay - I would question that. And anecdotally at
least people don't use prescription medicine because of the cost.


The saga of prescription charges goes on!

If you are even slightly financially OK but medically not OK, and
subject to NHS prescription charges, it is likely worth capping your
outgoings by getting a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (PPC) at
£104 a year. (Do government "don't pay" figures include PPC
purchasers? After all, they do not pay prescription by prescription.)

It is whether you pay at all, not whether you pay prescription by
prescription.

I take one medicine only and the NHS "cost" of that medicine is
marginally over £12 a year (one lot month). And this seems to
correlate with costs in other countries such as Spain, I am told,
where it is an over-the-counter medicine.

However, I and everyone else on this medicine qualify for a Medical
Exemption Certificate (Medex), so actually pay nothing. (And have the
benefit of not then paying for any other prescriptions.)

If I had to pay the full prescription charge of £7.65 twelve times a
year, I would be being ripped off by the system. (That is, being
charged almost £80 more than the NHS is charged for the medicine.)...

Having to get a prescription every month is a NICE recommendation, to
reduce the cost to the NHS from medicine supplied to people who die
before using it all. Some GPs will still give a three month
prescription.

Colin Bignell


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.

I go to the patient review meetings at our practice and they have stated
that they have saved significant money by cutting the prescription maximum
from 3 months to 2 months.

My feeling is that they could start with 1 month prescriptions, and work
upwards with those with chronic conditions to 2,3 even 6 months of
medication.

The assumption being that if you have been on the same medication for over
a year and the general prognosis is that you aren't going to peg out soon
from any known condition then you might as well have a long term supply.

I wonder, though, how much saving comes from the retire patients going to
Spain for 3 months over winter and having to buy one month's worth of
medication abroad. :-)

Cheers

Dave R