Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Minor ailment scheme thoughts?

81 replies

Oobis · 21/05/2015 18:02

This has been in the news recently, essentially, minor conditions can be treated by a pharmacist who can supply medication for the price of a prescription rather than you paying retail price (think calpol and similar). Therefore, items like this for people who don't pay for prescriptions can be supplied free of charge.
I'm amazed at the strength and variety of feelings amongst my peer group. Some think it's fabulous and they weren't aware, but others say if you can afford to buy this stuff, you should buy it and save the nhs some money. What are your thoughts? Obviously this is not a means tested scheme - should you use it if you could afford to buy or do you think as childrens' prescriptions are free that it is ok to get this stuff for free?
I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just interested in your thoughts. www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Pharmacy/Pages/Commonconditions.aspx

OP posts:
FlyingGoose · 21/05/2015 18:10

I think if you can afford it you should pay. I am on benefits and whilst I am aware of the scheme I have no desire to use it. However for those who cannot afford it for whatever reason it is a good thing. I don't believe it should be means tested as anyone can find themselves short of cash with a sick child regardless of circumstances.

EvilTendency1 · 21/05/2015 18:13

Well it's only available in Scotland, Wales and some pharmacists in England do it.

I personally don't think it is a fabulous idea, if your in receipt of benefits then yes I can see why it would be of benefit.

Eggybread00 · 21/05/2015 18:16

Everyone is entitled to it so I don't mind if people claim it regardless. This scheme has been in effect in our area for years and although I do pay it irritates me that when I go into boots with sick children they don't offer it automatically. The only time I don't pay is when it's for prescription only meds like eye drops for conjunctivitis as you have to use the free scheme to get them rather than bothering the gp.

crazykat · 21/05/2015 18:21

I won't use it. We can afford calpol and suchlike, it was close though when all four dcs had chickenpox and the calpol/piriton/virasooth cost a small fortune and we could only just afford it.

I think it's a good idea for those who genuinely can't afford it but it should only be for those who can't afford medicines.

It would be better to make calpol cheaper, I know you can get sachets in the £1 shop but for someone to get there from where I live would cost £3 in bus fare or a good half hour walk which isn't possible with a child poorly enough to need medicine. The nearest boots is five minutes walk away at the gp surgery. If we had to rely on benefits we'd probably need to use the scheme if one of the dcs were ill.

meddie · 21/05/2015 18:36

If people would normally go to their GP to get Calpol on prescription, because that way its free (this does happen) then for them to go the pharmacist instead saves the NHS £25 for a GP appointment and frees up an appointment for someone who needs it.
In essence its a good scheme, yes I,m sure people who can afford to and would normally buy it will take the free option, but hopefully in the end it would save the NHS money and free up GP time for others

Sirzy · 21/05/2015 18:38

It's great for people who need it but people are going to start taking that this has been publicised so much.

I also don't think the "saving GP" appointments provides an excuse to use the scheme either tbh, we should be telling people not to waste GP time and just to buy the medicine rather than giving them something for free that is easily avaiable and cheap.

LoxleyBarrett · 21/05/2015 18:50

And what do you do if you can't afford it SIrzy?

Sirzy · 21/05/2015 18:56

Try reading the first line of my post?

shitebag · 21/05/2015 19:14

I think it should be means tested.

I know several people who have relatively high incomes and openly admit that they don't pay for Calpol, head lice treatment, teething gel or nappy cream because they are "entitled" to it for free.

I don't buy into the "they'd get it on prescription for free anyway because they're under 16" line, I've never been offered any basic cupboard medicines from the Doctor and wouldn't expect to be even now I'm reliant on benefits.

But then I am in Scotland and don't agree with free prescriptions either, I think a £1 charge for every prescription issued to an over 16 and free for children/lifelong prescriptions would help the NHS get out of the hole its in and redirect the funds to better use.

manchestermummy · 21/05/2015 19:21

When our dc were little our GP would always give us a prescription for generic paracetamol suspension if we were there with an ear infection for example.

I can't see the difference tbh.

LoxleyBarrett · 21/05/2015 19:21

The whole reason for MAS is to increase capacity in primary care. Of course those that self-care should continue to do so, but the vast majority of people who visit the GP for minor ailments do so because they can't afford to buy the medicines. Simply telling them to stop wasting GP time is rather insulting SIrzy.

Minions · 21/05/2015 19:23

This is interesting. I have used minor ailments for my kid and received free paracetamol and nasal saline drops. I didn't think I should offer to pay although I could afford it. I pay my taxes and see this as something I've contributed to. I wonder, do most people who can afford minor ailment treatment refuse the free medicine and opt to buy it? It's making me question if what I'm doing is right.

shitebag · 21/05/2015 19:25

The MAS is opt in here, I just chose not too.

chiruri · 21/05/2015 19:30

I didn't think it was just for medications that can be bought over the counter anyway? There are certain things that pharmacist prescribers can prescribe, and for those I will (and indeed, have) utilise the service in stead of taking a GP appointment. For OTT medications like Calpol etc, I agree that if you can afford it, you shouldn't use the service and just buy it as usual.

RunnerHasbeen · 21/05/2015 19:31

I think you have to make health policy decisions based on how people actually behave, not some ideal way they should behave. If people were that easy to change we wouldn't have people smoking at all.

If it is cheaper to give out the odd bottle of calpol to someone wealthy but grasping than it is to monitor those who are deserving, or to have GP time wasted - then I think it is a politically brave decision. It is much easier to make popular decisions, even if they make no financial sense, than counterintuitive ones that are actually cheaper. People love getting on the moral high ground. Ruth Davidson tried to criticise Nicola Sturgeon, saying she can afford her own prescriptions and having them free is a waste - it was cheaper to have them all free than to run the exemption service (but not such a nice soundbite).

It isn't that easy to exploit, you register with one pharmacy and they won't let you stock up and sell it on or anything. Most people like having some calpol to hand so throw it into their basket at the supermarket instead of waiting until you have a sick child to show the pharmacist.

chiruri · 21/05/2015 19:31

OTC, not OTT!

TheFairyCaravan · 21/05/2015 19:33

I think it was really irresponsible to publicise it like it has been. If people genuinely can not afford paracetomol, ibuprofen or headlice treatments for their children then I don't have a problem with it and think it's a good scheme. However, it is now going to be used as a "free for all" and completely abused.

The NHS doesn't have a bottomless medicine budget and the pharmacies will be claiming it back from the NHS.

I'm of the view that just because you can doesn't mean you should.

GozerTheGozerian · 21/05/2015 19:33

I know people who can afford to buy these medicines, and have done up until now, who are delighted to find they can get something for free. I sincerely hope I never hear a word from them bemoaning the decline of the NHS. Just because you can get it for free doesn't mean you should - all that will happen is precious resources will get diverted for a while, away from other initiatives, before the entire scheme is pulled due to cost. I wonder if those people are also likely to complain about benefit 'scroungers' whilst missing the huge dollop of irony in their own actions. I honestly believe those rejoicing in this, who can afford to buy these things, are massively bloody selfish for doing so.

If you can't afford the medication, or buying it would cause you to be unable to afford other essentials, go for it. Unfortunately some people are simply cock a hoop at getting a "bargain".

Bodicea · 21/05/2015 19:36

I have used it on and off. I don't feel guilty. I pay my taxes. I don't get child benefit. So it's a little saving I don't feel guilty about. When I was on maternity I got canisten equivalent a few times which really is expensive and whilst I am not broke every little helps. I hate the attitude to means testing in this country. The attitude is the more tax you pay the less services you should have available to you. In countries like Norway everyone pays a high rate of tax and everyone gets e benefits available to them. Much more fair.

bakingtins · 21/05/2015 19:37

I wouldn't use it and equally I wouldn't take up a GP appointment for a minor ailment that a trip to the pharmacy should sort. It enrages me that this has been all over Facebook this week with people encouraging everyone to claim their free medicine. It's not free, it comes out of an a NHS budget somewhere. When services are so overstretched and patients are being denied lifesaving or life enhancing surgeries and medications it's ridiculous to expect the NHS to treat your child's headlice, unless you genuinely can't afford it.
I would have no problem with it being means tested, or the OTC medicines being distributed by food banks etc.

LadyDeadpool · 21/05/2015 19:40

We're on ESA I've used it for headlice treatment and thrush treatment (until I found out you can buy Flucanzole for 99p from Amazon). I have never used it for calpol as its £1 in the poundshops nor nappy cream but it's important there are parents who can't afford that £1 and parents who have other priorities so the scheme means less children suffer.

I bet now its got so much publicity the Tories kill it tjough.

LadyDeadpool · 21/05/2015 19:43

as there though

Timely reminder to fix my autocorrect.

sanfairyanne · 21/05/2015 19:46

this has been all over my facebook. imo if you wouldnt usually go to your gp for calpol, you shouldnt use it. bet people sell it on as well. it made me quite cross, this scheme!

CanIGoToBedNow · 21/05/2015 19:47

I would not use it.... I can afford calpol or an own brand equivalent (because that's what you get).

For the same reason I've not taken up the oppoutrtunity of free prescriptions whilst pregnant. The NHS is not a bottomless pit! I'm getting my excellent (to date) care for free (via mine, and everyone else's taxes), I'm not going to take the piss by blagging free medicine as well!

OatTeaTea · 21/05/2015 19:48

I was encouraged to do this years ago by a parent who was really pleased with the scheme.

I thought it was a cheeky thing to do tbh if you do have the money for OTC drugs. Different if you are struggling to pay food bills.