Prescription Charges

[Davey Gaga]

Since working in the Pharmacy at Boots, I've had my eyes opened to how this system actually works.

In Scotland, prescriptions carry no fees if:

+ You are under 18, or aged 16 and 17 but in full-time education
+ You are over 60
+ You are "medically exempt" (more on this later)
+ You have a pre-payment certificate (you still have to pay for your script but the charge is a one-off payment for 4 months [£13] or 12 months [£38], which, in cases where large quantities of phamaceuticals are required, is actually an astronomical saving - you simply do not have to pay when you collect/hand in your script)
+ You are receiving X, Y and Z benefits (there are quite a few - the basic idea is that if you're on benefits then you get your script for free).

For those who are not exempt from paying for prescriptions, the charge is currently £4 per item (e.g. in my case I order cetirizine, sodium cromoglicate, ibuprofen and xylometazoline, so I'd pay £16 if I was any older than I am now).

I am unsure of prescription charges in other countries so forgive me if I'm wrong in thinking that England and the majority of the USA must pay for their prescriptions.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the appropriateness of charging for prescriptions. Should there be a charge at all? If you must pay for your healthcare, should prescriptions be included in this cost? Is the cost too high or low? If one person is paying for it, shouldn't everyone?

My boss himself once suggested that there should indeed be a charge for everyone but not at the full price of the medicines - if everyone made a contribution of the current £4 per item for their prescriptions, wouldn't our health service be in a better financial position? In complete fairness, I've seen a hell of a lot of medicines being thrown away after being prescribed, sometimes only days later, and the patient hasn't paid for any of it (although some of this is due to a distinct lack of communication between GPs and Pharmacies - I may cover this later). On the other hand, if patients had to pay, say, £4 per item, patients like my mum would be broke - she orders such a large quantity of potentially life-saving medicine every month that she often leaves the shop with two rather large carrier bags. I counted no less than 50 different medicines in one batch (before it comes up, it is all essential). Although her prescription is proportionately larger, that fee would simply not be plausible (instead, she has a 12 month pre-payment certificate, which costs £38 as stated earlier).

As a small sub-thought, box D in prescription exemption states that the patient is "medically exempt" - a small number of medical conditions are exempt from paying for prescriptions, diabetes and epilepsy being the most prevalent. Is it right that an epileptic or diabetic should receive free prescriptions over those who are in need of blood pressure or cholesterol tablets (for example)?

• Cancer
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Asthma
• Psoriasis
• Crohn’s Disease
• Schizophrenia
• Glaucoma
• Arthritis
• Chronic Leukaemia
• HIV/AIDS
• Ulcerative Colitis
• Hepatitis C

This is a selection of modern medical conditions which were undiscovered when the medical exemption was introduced to prescriptions - my mum has 4 of the worst and yet must pay for her prescription. Is this right?

I'll leave this thread for now with a source which explains thoroughly the prescription charge exemptions and also shares some insight as to why it is not entirely appropriate:
http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/scrap/scrap06.html

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Maybe (for a change) the government don't think it's entirely fair to give with one hand and take with the other ie "here's your state pension, now give us some back for your medicine". It's harder to put up an argument for the folk on benefits (for whatever reason) because so many lazy cunts abuse that system, but, supposing we're being naive and believe that everyone is genuine and honest: it would be just as unfair to say "here's some money to help you live with your disability, but we'd like some back to pay for your medicine.". I suppose unemployed folks are on that same level, though some of those cunts would benefit from getting up off their scrounging arses and finding a job.

Though, with that said, the NHS and other health services are essentially businesses and I'll bet they make a packet. After all, there'll always be ill folk. Bottom line is: they don't give a shit about Mr Smith the pensioner or Mrs Jones the administrator - they just want their money.

I suppose in the unfortunate case of your mum, it's just tough titties. Though it shouldn't be that way (and I think we all know that) it would be impossbile for our already incompetent government to decide on a case-to-case basis whether someone should pay for their prescriptions.

I hopes that was mighty (or even semi) coherent.

 

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

Is it right that an epileptic or diabetic should receive free prescriptions over those who are in need of blood pressure or cholesterol tablets (for example)?

I think for blood pressure, they should be exempt. I've known a number of people with high blood pressure, and the stress and troubles that can cause so I think it's fair that their medication is free. As for cholesterol tablets, definitely not. (I know that they were only examples, but I thought I'd address them anyway). I don't know if the list in England is the same as in Scotland, but I know that generally it's people with chronic illnesses who are exempt from the prescription fees.

In England, the prescription charge is significantly more - somewhere in the region of £7 per item. I've always thought that this is ridiculously high, because obviously some medication is more important and does more regarding a person's condition, and so I've always thought that the price should depend on what the medicine is and what it's being prescribed for. Obviously the problem with that system is the question of who decides how much to charge, which is probably why such a system is not in place.

 

[Bun]

Prescription charges in the US depend on what kind of insurance you have or if you have any at all. Generally, insurance companies will pay a good amount of what the prescription might cost, but that doesn't come without stipulation. Many companies have a waiting period on certain medication. For instance, a 14 pill prescription might have to last you 23 days (that is, depending on how anal and money-grubbing your insurance is).

Let's take mine as an example. They've hiked up the costs on me in the last few months. One prescription would only cost me $5.00 to refill a few months ago, but now that same prescription was $34.00 dollars and for 2 pills less. It can get pretty messy. I don't know what the deal is for children under a certain age or the elderly. I'm merely speaking from a 23-year old on an individual plan basis.

As for if the insurance won't pay/you don't have insurance, well, let's just hope that's not the case. >_> Medications can run you a pretty penny. I remember one prescription having the choice to either pay out of pocket ($188.00) or wait one more week and have the insurance cover it ($34.00). *sigh*