Free prescriptions in Scotland

[Toots]

Prescriptions for medication are free in Scotland   ...............  even for Paracetamol and aspirin which are readily available over the counter.  The prescription bill has hit 1.3 billion pounds.    Surely most people could afford to pay the same as they do in England and a heck of a lot of that money could be put towards hospitals and nurses.  I have no idea why paying for prescriptions was phased out in 2011 and apart from people on the poverty line receiving them for free, I don't think it was a good idea.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Toots

[VERYSTORMY]

Because you can be earning a reasonable income, but if you are on a number of prescriptions, find it oppressively expensive. For example, I would be paying nearly £100 a month. It is about recognising that healthcare is a human right and not something for the wealthy. 

Also, things like aspirin are being removed from prescribed 

[Toots]

1 hour ago, VERYSTORMY said:

Because you can be earning a reasonable income, but if you are on a number of prescriptions, find it oppressively expensive. For example, I would be paying nearly £100 a month. It is about recognising that healthcare is a human right and not something for the wealthy. 

Also, things like aspirin are being removed from prescribed 

Fair enough but there are plenty of well off folk in Scotland who could be paying for their own prescriptions.  Very glad to hear that paracetamol is being removed.  Blimey you can get a packet here for 80 cents.

[Parley]

5 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said:

Because you can be earning a reasonable income, but if you are on a number of prescriptions, find it oppressively expensive. For example, I would be paying nearly £100 a month. It is about recognising that healthcare is a human right and not something for the wealthy. 

Also, things like aspirin are being removed from prescribed 

But you are working full time and can afford it.

That is is a ridiculous argument.

Food and water and Shelter are human rights too but you have to pay for them.

Wouldn't it be great if the government paid your grocery bill, rent and all your utilities too ?

[Marisawright]

I agree that people should have to pay for prescriptions.  As for people who need a lot of medications - that's easily dealt with, they could make them free once you've reached a certain threshold.

I used to take the opposite view, but changed my mind when I was back in the UK recently.

One of my sisters is on asthma medication, like me.  When visiting her, I accidentally left my inhaler behind and asked her if she had a spare one. Yes, she said, and took me through to her bedroom where she had a drawer full of them!!!    It turns out she gets a regular monthly prescription which is automatically filled.  However, she's not always very conscientious in taking her medication, so an inhaler usually lasts her much longer than a month.  So she's amassed all these inhalers - and because it's costing her nothing, she figures she may as well stockpile (don't ask me what for - nuclear war?).  

My other sister is on heart medication and she has two drawers full of pills.

 

[Guest The Pom Queen]

9 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said:

Because you can be earning a reasonable income, but if you are on a number of prescriptions, find it oppressively expensive. For example, I would be paying nearly £100 a month. It is about recognising that healthcare is a human right and not something for the wealthy. 

Also, things like aspirin are being removed from prescribed 

Well they could do it like Australia, we have just reached the PBS Safety Net Threshhold although to be honest I think if I had asked sooner we would have reached it 3 months ago. Once your family have spent $1500 on medications your prescriptions are reduced from approx $39 each to $6.40, this is a huge saving for me as I’m on 70 tablets a day not including any supplements/vitamins. 

[Guest The Pom Queen]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

I agree that people should have to pay for prescriptions.  As for people who need a lot of medications - that's easily dealt with, they could make them free once you've reached a certain threshold.

I used to take the opposite view, but changed my mind when I was back in the UK recently.

One of my sisters is on asthma medication, like me.  When visiting her, I accidentally left my inhaler behind and asked her if she had a spare one. Yes, she said, and took me through to her bedroom where she had a drawer full of them!!!    It turns out she gets a regular monthly prescription which is automatically filled.  However, she's not always very conscientious in taking her medication, so an inhaler usually lasts her much longer than a month.  So she's amassed all these inhalers - and because it's costing her nothing, she figures she may as well stockpile (don't ask me what for - nuclear war?).  

My other sister is on heart medication and she has two drawers full of pills.

 

I never throw meds away because if I’ve been paying $39 a box and maybe had 5 out of them then the Dr has stopped them, I can nearly guarantee a few weeks down the track he will start them again, so now I always keep them. 

‘Also when we were paying $39 a box if I missed a few I wouldn’t renew my script until I’d finished the box, now I’m paying the $6.40 I think I may be tempted to make sure I’ve always got them in stock and I don’t run out.

I don’t agree with people stockpiling meds if they aren’t paying for them. 

[Tulip1]

12 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said:

Because you can be earning a reasonable income, but if you are on a number of prescriptions, find it oppressively expensive. For example, I would be paying nearly £100 a month. It is about recognising that healthcare is a human right and not something for the wealthy. 

Also, things like aspirin are being removed from prescribed 

You wouldn't be paying that much a month as people who take a lot will get an annual subscription which can be paid monthly and there is a maximum they have to pay which is much less than you've quoted 

[Home and Happy]

16 hours ago, Toots said:

Prescriptions for medication are free in Scotland   ...............  even for Paracetamol and aspirin which are readily available over the counter.  The prescription bill has hit 1.3 billion pounds.    Surely most people could afford to pay the same as they do in England and a heck of a lot of that money could be put towards hospitals and nurses.  I have no idea why paying for prescriptions was phased out in 2011 and apart from people on the poverty line receiving them for free, I don't think it was a good idea.

Scotland income tax rates are higher nowadays than rest of UK. Doesn't matter if someone has more money than someone else, the NHS is free for all citizens who live here, no matter who you are you all have the same rights and access to the NHS as the next guy.  One of the reasons I love living in the UK is the NHS and the safety & security that gives me.

[NicF]

 

21 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said:

Because you can be earning a reasonable income, but if you are on a number of prescriptions, find it oppressively expensive. For example, I would be paying nearly £100 a month. It is about recognising that healthcare is a human right and not something for the wealthy. 

Also, things like aspirin are being removed from prescribed 

Just a couple of points on this. 

1. Prescriptions in England cost 8.80GBP per script.  To be paying nearly 100gbp per month every month you would need to be filling 11 scripts per month every month.  While I accept that this is possible it would be unusual.

2. For those people who do need several scripts every month it is possible to purchase a prescription prepayment certificate which costs just 104GBP per year, so nothing near the 100GBP per month you are claiming (source - https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcosts/Pages/Prescriptioncosts.aspx ).

Edited July 27, 2018 by NicF
Corrected info

[s713]

Don't worry Brexit will sort it, they'll be about 15 quid for everyone in the Uk soon .

[tea4too]

Health care is a devolved issue in the UK and Wales has provided for free NHS prescriptions since 2007, with Northern Ireland adopting the same approach from 2010 and Scotland 2011.

The Welsh Health Minister continues to support the policy on the basis that it is a long term investment in people’s health, keeping people out of hospital and cutting overall NHS costs. Prevention being better (and generally cheaper) than cure, I guess.  Whatever the process some people will abuse it, but I read somewhere that setting up an admin system to process payments, assess exemptions, chase fraud and such like has been valued as a more expensive system to administer.

Painkillers such as paracetamol and aspirin are available on prescription when patients need them in larger quantities than pharmacies and supermarkets can legally provide. T x

 

 

[Tulip1]

On 26/07/2018 at 19:39, Home and Happy said:

Scotland income tax rates are higher nowadays than rest of UK. Doesn't matter if someone has more money than someone else, the NHS is free for all citizens who live here, no matter who you are you all have the same rights and access to the NHS as the next guy.  One of the reasons I love living in the UK is the NHS and the safety & security that gives me.

We know it is free, I think the debate was whether it should be or whether people should pay 

[Home and Happy]

2 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

We know it is free, I think the debate was whether it should be or whether people should pay 

Its absolutely not free and yes we already do pay for it - it's called National Insurance & Income Tax and it is deducted from your salary - not optional.

You earn more, you pay more - much more !.  

I would have no issues giving free meds to someone who has paid in their fair share and has been on a very high rate of NI all their lives. 

They have certainly chipped in their bit for their country.

[BacktoDemocracy]

On 28/7/2018 at 15:35, Tulip1 said:

We know it is free, I think the debate was whether it should be or whether people should pay 

Just read what  it was like before the NHS came in in 1946, the whole point of socialised medicine was its inclusivity based on need rather than ability to pay.

What do you suggest for people on low pay or chronically ill preventing them from working regularly and therefore never pay in sufficient to make it appear they should be treated.

http://www.nhshistory.net/shorthistory.htm

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/origins-nhs.htm

Edited July 31, 2018 by BacktoDemocracy

[Tulip1]

14 minutes ago, BacktoDemocracy said:

Just read what  it was like before the NHS came in in 1946, the whole point of socialised medicine was its inclusivity based on need rather than ability to pay.

What do you suggest for people on low pay or chronically ill preventing them from working regularly and therefore never pay in sufficient to make it appear they should be treated.

http://www.nhshistory.net/shorthistory.htm

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/origins-nhs.htm

I think it's a well known fact that a lot has changed since 1946 so what was ok then isn't necessarily so now.  Not a lot of point looking into the archives of over 70 years ago.  If things were the same the NHS wouldn't be on its knees. It is not sustainable in its current form so wouldn't it be better to look at how funding can be increased rather than go on about the good old days.. In England, people on low income/benefits do not pay for prescriptions so people with chronic conditions and other things that mean they cannot work would never go without. The post is about whether people should pay towards prescriptions as they do in England for example. Should a comfortable, well off adult get it for free or pay a contribution towards their medication.  Good for them for getting it for free, I'm not having a go. This is simply a debate on whether it's right or not.

[BacktoDemocracy]

10 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

I think it's a well known fact that a lot has changed since 1946 so what was ok then isn't necessarily so now.  Not a lot of point looking into the archives of over 70 years ago.  If things were the same the NHS wouldn't be on its knees. It is not sustainable in its current form so wouldn't it be better to look at how funding can be increased rather than go on about the good old days.. In England, people on low income/benefits do not pay for prescriptions so people with chronic conditions and other things that mean they cannot work would never go without. The post is about whether people should pay towards prescriptions as they do in England for example. Should a comfortable, well off adult get it for free or pay a contribution towards their medication.  Good for them for getting it for free, I'm not having a go. This is simply a debate on whether it's right or not.

And I was trying to add to the debate about right or wrong by trying to get people to face up to the founding principles of the NHS and decide whether those were principles they still wanted to abide by.

I was not referring to the 'good ole days' but trying to shed some light on what life was like, healthwise, before the NHS, and what I was referring to was how there are lots of people who only make small NI contributions over their lifes but will have to be supported by the NHS and you seemed to infer that was not acceptable and I was simply pointing out that was the founding principle of the NHS.

[Paul1Perth]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 19:44, Marisawright said:

I agree that people should have to pay for prescriptions.  As for people who need a lot of medications - that's easily dealt with, they could make them free once you've reached a certain threshold.

I used to take the opposite view, but changed my mind when I was back in the UK recently.

One of my sisters is on asthma medication, like me.  When visiting her, I accidentally left my inhaler behind and asked her if she had a spare one. Yes, she said, and took me through to her bedroom where she had a drawer full of them!!!    It turns out she gets a regular monthly prescription which is automatically filled.  However, she's not always very conscientious in taking her medication, so an inhaler usually lasts her much longer than a month.  So she's amassed all these inhalers - and because it's costing her nothing, she figures she may as well stockpile (don't ask me what for - nuclear war?).  

My other sister is on heart medication and she has two drawers full of pills.

 

When my Dad died and my Mum moved into a retirement home me and my Sis had the job of clearing the house out. Both my parents were on serious medication for all sorts of things for years, including mental illness on my Mums side. We found loads of bilster packs of medication in the wardrobe. Must have been thousands of pounds worth. Don't know whether they'd been over prescribed, forgot to take them or what. I said to my Sis we should take them down to the local school and flog them, could have made a mint.

We took them to the chemist to get them disposed of. They weren't surprised.

[Paul1Perth]

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 22:20, The Pom Queen said:

I never throw meds away because if I’ve been paying $39 a box and maybe had 5 out of them then the Dr has stopped them, I can nearly guarantee a few weeks down the track he will start them again, so now I always keep them. 

‘Also when we were paying $39 a box if I missed a few I wouldn’t renew my script until I’d finished the box, now I’m paying the $6.40 I think I may be tempted to make sure I’ve always got them in stock and I don’t run out.

I don’t agree with people stockpiling meds if they aren’t paying for them. 

I've known my Dad go to the cupboard where all his meds were and say "I've got no blue ones left, I'll take a couple of green ones instead".

The amount of pills they were both on was incredible. Guess they must have done some good. They both died aged 93.

[Toots]

When I was working in Liverpool UK one of my co-workers was on Valium.  She was scared that her train would get stuck in a tunnel on the way to work so she would take a Valium before going to work then she would look out of the office window at lunch time and if she felt it was too crowded for her walk to the sandwich shop she'd pop another Valium.  Before catching the train home another Valium was popped just in case the train got stuck in a tunnel.  This was every work day.  Her doctor used to mail her Valium to her every month.  What she really needed was to see a psychologist.  What a carry on when she decided to get pregnant because she had to stop taking Valium.  She was off work for nearly 6 weeks with withdrawal symptoms.  I went to visit her at her home and she was shaking and very moody.  

[ali]

22 minutes ago, Toots said:

When I was working in Liverpool UK one of my co-workers was on Valium.  She was scared that her train would get stuck in a tunnel on the way to work so she would take a Valium before going to work then she would look out of the office window at lunch time and if she felt it was too crowded for her walk to the sandwich shop she'd pop another Valium.  Before catching the train home another Valium was popped just in case the train got stuck in a tunnel.  This was every work day.  Her doctor used to mail her Valium to her every month.  What she really needed was to see a psychologist.  What a carry on when she decided to get pregnant because she had to stop taking Valium.  She was off work for nearly 6 weeks with withdrawal symptoms.  I went to visit her at her home and she was shaking and very moody.  

The Dr. needed reporting for posting medication to her.

[Toots]

3 minutes ago, ali said:

The Dr. needed reporting for posting medication to her.

The sh!t hit the fan when her doc retired and the new doc saw the size of my co-workers file.  She was a hypochondriac.  Went to the doc for the slightest thing and was forever taking time off work.  

Funnily enough after she had a child she was an entirely different person.  She no longer was totally absorbed in herself.  We are still in touch 30 years later.

[Tulip1]

2 hours ago, BacktoDemocracy said:

And I was trying to add to the debate about right or wrong by trying to get people to face up to the founding principles of the NHS and decide whether those were principles they still wanted to abide by.

I was not referring to the 'good ole days' but trying to shed some light on what life was like, healthwise, before the NHS, and what I was referring to was how there are lots of people who only make small NI contributions over their lifes but will have to be supported by the NHS and you seemed to infer that was not acceptable and I was simply pointing out that was the founding principle of the NHS.

I am at a loss. I have checked my posts and no where do I say that I think people who pay little or no contributions shouldn't get help on the NHS, nor do I infer it is not acceptable if they do. In fact, the only thing I mention is about the fairness of it, saying that in England people with chronic illnesses or other reasons why they cannot work still get it and of course they should.  Taking those ones out the equation because of course they should get it free my point was should all others get it free or should there be a threshold of you pay a contribution if you earn over a certain amount. That's my last say on it as if you don't get my one and only debate by now I surrender