Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Helping the government save money

467 replies

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 18:49

I think free prescriptions for people with certain conditions should be means tested. What else could the government cut to save money?

OP posts:
EilonwyWithRedGoldHair · 23/01/2026 23:45

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:40

How about we just say nobody gets free prescriptions unless they’re already entitled to benefits? Then we wouldn’t have to means test them.

Because then people who just miss out on being entitled to benefits might not be able to afford them, get worse, end up being hospitalised and that costs a shitload more than some free antibiotics and as an added bonus increases pressure on A&E.

(We don't get means tested benefits because of our savings, but our earnings don't cover our outgoings so savings are reducing. If I wasn't in Wales I'd absolutely be considering how necessary a prescription was.)

EilonwyWithRedGoldHair · 23/01/2026 23:39

Crunchymum · 23/01/2026 20:13

To answer the actual question (about saving money) I'd like to see prescription waste tackled.

I'm on a few medications for an autoimmune condition and have had numerous experiences over the years with being unable to get my prescriptions updated correctly in a timely fashion resulting in surplus medication. For example in order to get one medication I had to accept 3 months worth of an incorrect dosage of the other medication because the consultant letter hadn't reached the online pharmacy who dispensed my medication.

I knew it was going to be an issue so I called pharmacy, they didnt have the consultant letter but I had it in my patient portal and offered to send it over which they refused. I also chased my team for the letter, made several calls over several days but in the end due to running low on one medication I had to just accept the prescription as it stood, knowing I was going to waste 3 months of medication as they wouldn't let me "just" order one and wait for the new script to arrive for the second medication.

There was also another time my hospital switched providers and I was sent a duplicate order. I had 10 weeks supply and they sent me another 3 months. As soon as I realised I was being sent a fulll script so early I called to try and postpone the order from the new pharmacy / supplier but again "computer said no" and I ended up with a huge backlog of medication and of course ended up having a dosage change before I made a dent in it.

I'm on quite a few support groups for my condition and this is a country wide issue thay happens in numerous trusts.

TLDR a good way to save money is to allow more autonomy with patients on long term medical conditions to manage their own supplies.

FWIW my hospital accept my surplus medication, which is a sealed and prefilled one use injection, as they use it for training new patients to inject and they even supply in emergencies (for example if someone comes into clinic and the consultant changes dose, the clinic have a supply and they can provide an interim amount of prefilled injection pens whilst the new script it being sorted).

Edited

The other side of this is only being allowed 30 days medication at a time. The recommendation for my DH's condition is that three months should be provided, largely because double doses are needed sometimes.

Our GP surgery will not allow this. If he does have to take a double dose, let's say he's had the flu, it's then a fight to reorder because they say he's ordering too early.

I understand they want to reduce waste, but with DH there's not going to be any wasted medication because if he doesn't take it he will die. It's very frustrating, particularly with his last repeat which either the surgery or the pharmacy fucked up (nobody was admitting fault), potentially leaving him without medication - the pharmacy eventually gave an emergency supply when the importance of it was pointed out to them.

LighthouseLED · 23/01/2026 23:38

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 20:13

But an argument in opposition to means testing is irrelevant in this instance. We should restrict free prescriptions to people who have already been identified as being in need of benefits. No need for further means testing.

But there are always anomalies. There are edge cases where people on benefits have more income than lower earners who don’t qualify. Benefits doesn’t automatically equal being worse off than someone not on benefits.

I think the age-related free prescriptions should be aligned with state pension age rather than keeping it at 60, though.

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 23:31

nuffinkdoing · 23/01/2026 23:25

What about the Scottish, Northern Irish and the Welsh who get all prescriptions free? Is that fair on the English?

No, it’s not. It’s a disgrace.

OP posts:
nuffinkdoing · 23/01/2026 23:25

What about the Scottish, Northern Irish and the Welsh who get all prescriptions free? Is that fair on the English?

ScrambledEggs12 · 23/01/2026 23:23

I really don't understand the big issue when it's £120 a year.

I only have a prescription for one item currently. I asked the doctor to make it for 8 weeks rather than 4 weeks, therefore I only have to pay for a prescription every 8 weeks.

When I had 4 medications and needed a weekly prescription then I paid for the prepayment prescription card.

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 23:22

Arlanymor · 23/01/2026 23:13

So I don't get my heart medication because I'm not on benefits? I don't even earn a quarter of £200,000. I don't take a penny off the state and never have in my life. But yes, I should pay to stay alive. Even though my heart condition is not my fault; I work, contribute and take nothing from the taxpayer, and never have.

I think you should pay for your medication, yes.

OP posts:
Arlanymor · 23/01/2026 23:13

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:40

How about we just say nobody gets free prescriptions unless they’re already entitled to benefits? Then we wouldn’t have to means test them.

So I don't get my heart medication because I'm not on benefits? I don't even earn a quarter of £200,000. I don't take a penny off the state and never have in my life. But yes, I should pay to stay alive. Even though my heart condition is not my fault; I work, contribute and take nothing from the taxpayer, and never have.

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 23:06

Wolmando · 23/01/2026 22:42

Like people with benefits get everything else free so are better off than some low earners and pensioners

They shouldn’t be - that needs to be dealt with too.

OP posts:
Politicians247UnderwearExtinguishingService · 23/01/2026 22:48

taxguru · 23/01/2026 19:21

I think that's the killer really. Fair enough that, say, Diabetes drugs are prescribed free of charge, but why does that also apply to other things that the person was on before Diabetes diagnosis that they previously paid for? Why should it apply to completely unrelated drugs for unrelated conditions?

I gather that you don't really have a great understanding of type 1 diabetes. The thing is that it very rarely arises in a vacuum. Numerous other health issues can be warning signs/precursors/contributory factors; and in turn, even after diagnosis and regular, controlled treatment, it puts out its tentacles and tends to cause and exacerbate countless other health issues throughout the whole body - basically potentially everywhere that blood goes.

Added to this that many people living with it face huge challenges that will seriously affect their energy levels and reduce their capacity to work and earn long term as fully as if they didn't have T1D - plus of course being barred from a number of jobs because of their condition.

If it makes you happier, many people with T1D will die considerably earlier than average as a direct result of the condition and/or complications; so they won't continue to be such a drain on the country's healthcare costs (or pension costs) for nearly as long as the decent, righteous people who don't have it...

Wolmando · 23/01/2026 22:42

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:40

How about we just say nobody gets free prescriptions unless they’re already entitled to benefits? Then we wouldn’t have to means test them.

Like people with benefits get everything else free so are better off than some low earners and pensioners

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:40

JohnTheRevelator · 23/01/2026 22:37

But all the admin that would go with means testing those people would probably end up costing more than the savings!

How about we just say nobody gets free prescriptions unless they’re already entitled to benefits? Then we wouldn’t have to means test them.

OP posts:
JohnTheRevelator · 23/01/2026 22:37

But all the admin that would go with means testing those people would probably end up costing more than the savings!

TeenYearsAreBrutal · 23/01/2026 22:33

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:29

I don’t hate you, I just think they should change the law so high earners can’t do that.

I paid just shy of £50k tax last year. Do I feel guilty about claiming a few £k back for my child with needs? Do I fuck.

Frequency · 23/01/2026 22:31

FurForksSake · 23/01/2026 22:19

The one single thing that would save the government the most is tackling preventable ill health.

Putting real money into building walkable communities, workplaces that support and reward activity and healthy practices, taxing heavily unhealthy food and finding ways to stop people smoking and drinking.

Putting decent money into mental health and public health promotion in a bid to be preventative of ill health down the line would absolutely pay dividends.

Building social housing that doesn’t make people sick, funding community programmes for healthy eating and exercise and really improving council owned leisure would go a huge distance.

Preventable illnesses cost us a huge amount. They should hand out Mounjaro and gym memberships to anyone with a bmi over 30 and keep them on it.

I agree with everything except the tax on unhealthy food. I would agree with this if the money raised was used to subsidise whole foods and lean proteins. And, yes, I know, the average MNetter can feed a family of four for a week with a single lentil and half a can of pasata, but for the rest of us mere mortals, whole foods cost more. People can't afford a tax on the most affordable foods right now.

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:29

TeenYearsAreBrutal · 23/01/2026 22:25

You’ll hate me, OP! I’m a high earner but claim DLA for my child.

I don’t hate you, I just think they should change the law so high earners can’t do that.

OP posts:
Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:26

Jamsponges · 23/01/2026 22:12

Anyone getting lots of prescriptions would just get a prepaid certificate though so we're talking about saving 120 pounds a person. It's not worth means testing

Edited

£120 a person adds up.

OP posts:
TeenYearsAreBrutal · 23/01/2026 22:25

You’ll hate me, OP! I’m a high earner but claim DLA for my child.

Arlanymor · 23/01/2026 22:21

It's been proven in Wales (google it!) that removing cost barriers to those needing regular medication mean that more people are likely to take it, are less likely to ration it, are more likely to look after their overall health better and therefore contribute to better health outcomes. It helps people manage their conditions and prevents unnecessary time spent in hospital. Also means that more people are in work managing their conditions are able to live longer and happier lives - call me mad, but I think that matters more than anything.

Multi-millionaire Nigel Farage has alluded to what you have @Samdelila - which in itself should be enough for most people to think it's a diabolical idea. He wants a medical insurance scheme to include prescription charges... of course he never gives any details so that no one can challenge him (because there is no information to challenge him on) but it's certainly where his train of thinking is going. 'More bang for your buck' is his motto. In the run up to the Senedd elections I will be reminding everyone of his utter disdain for other people.

FurForksSake · 23/01/2026 22:19

The one single thing that would save the government the most is tackling preventable ill health.

Putting real money into building walkable communities, workplaces that support and reward activity and healthy practices, taxing heavily unhealthy food and finding ways to stop people smoking and drinking.

Putting decent money into mental health and public health promotion in a bid to be preventative of ill health down the line would absolutely pay dividends.

Building social housing that doesn’t make people sick, funding community programmes for healthy eating and exercise and really improving council owned leisure would go a huge distance.

Preventable illnesses cost us a huge amount. They should hand out Mounjaro and gym memberships to anyone with a bmi over 30 and keep them on it.

SecretYoda · 23/01/2026 22:19

I get free prescriptions due to a medical condition/exemption and I've never really understood why I can get everything for free and not just the life saving drug.

If it helps, I can't recall ever using my exemption certificate for anything else. I tend to just pay for private healthcare and prescriptions for anything I need.

Jamsponges · 23/01/2026 22:12

Anyone getting lots of prescriptions would just get a prepaid certificate though so we're talking about saving 120 pounds a person. It's not worth means testing

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 22:10

mondaytosunday · 23/01/2026 22:03

This is hardly a new debate.
One danger of means testing is it may lead to some people rationing their medication. And didn’t Wakes and Scotland scrap charging partly because the cost of collecting it was inefficient compared to the benefit of universal free access?
I think this specific issue is far more complex that you present it to be.

The cost of collecting it was inefficient compared to the benefit of universal free access? Come again? How hard is it for the pharmacy to put money through the till? How difficult is it to process pre payment certificate charges? I fail to see how banking money paid for prescriptions is that complicated or expensive to do.

OP posts:
MapleOakPine · 23/01/2026 22:09

Get rid of the triple lock on pensions. It's completely unfair to have such a generous pension scheme for the current retired population while simultaneously pushing up the retirement age for the working population.

mondaytosunday · 23/01/2026 22:03

This is hardly a new debate.
One danger of means testing is it may lead to some people rationing their medication. And didn’t Wakes and Scotland scrap charging partly because the cost of collecting it was inefficient compared to the benefit of universal free access?
I think this specific issue is far more complex that you present it to be.

Swipe left for the next trending thread