To think blanket free prescriptions for over 60s NEED to end?

[Idratherbepaddleboarding]

I know this will be controversial but I popped to the doctors in my lunch break to collect my prescription and joined a longish queue. Everyone in front of me was over 60 and collecting huge bags of medications and I was the only one paying for any of it.

I don’t dispute that I should have to pay but often I can’t afford it which has led to me having to miss days of my medication, leaving me feeling very emotional and at times suicidal (medication is for depression). Perhaps if everyone who has over a certain income had to pay, they’d be able to lower the prescription charge for everyone or be able to afford the pay rises they say they can’t afford for nurses and junior doctors.

The killer was that every single one of the people in front of me got back into massive, brand new SUVs, one couple into a Range Rover and another into a Jaguar. If they can afford to own (and run!) cars like that, paying for a prescription would be a drop in the ocean for them. AIBU to think that free prescriptions should be limited to those in pension credit just like Universal Credit?

When DH’s grandad died, his mum and auntie shared out his collection of prescription paracetamol and ibuprofen (I know they should be returned to the pharmacy but they’d only have been destroyed and both are ex nurses so I guess they know what they’re doing). I’m not joking, there were boxes and boxes of the stuff, we didn’t buy painkillers for years and these will have cost the NHS a lot more than they would from the supermarket and weren’t even taken by the person that they were intended for! Surely paracetamol and ibuprofen should not be available on the NHS at all?

I really don’t want to bash the over 60s and it wouldn’t be a vote winner for politicians but surely we can’t afford to keep free prescriptions for those that can afford them?

Means testing costs extra.

Or people should just be more honest and generous with their money, rather than us forcing people to prove who's the poorest.

Means testing always impacts low earners the hardest because there's always a large group who earns just above a threshold or doesn't qualify for some reason.

The Govn recently reviewed all this after Johnson put it forward
Decision made mid March.

On advice from doctors etc it was decided not to raise the age for free prescriptions as

people would start rationing their supply
this would lead to further illness
more gp appointments
hospital appointments

leading to more cost to the nhs in the long run.

That's because the thresholds are set wrongly. We have far too many "cliff edge" thresholds at lots of different levels of income for both taxes and benefits. Many are nonsensical. And, as usual, with politicians/civil servants, there's no joined up thinking between departments. What we need is more common sense applied, more realisation of the blindingly obvious "unforeseen consequences", etc. It's as if junior ministers and mandarins just think of a number rather than put any proper consideration into getting the level right and thinking of the consequences and side effects, etc.

I think national insurance should be scrapped completely as a sperate entity tbh. We should just have tax. It isn't fair like you said that not everyone pays it and also it gives people the impression that they have paid into a pension "pot" which then gives the (understandable) view that since they have "paid in" they are entitled to lots of freebies when older because it's being funded with their own money. And no before anyone has a go at me I'm not suggesting we stop the OAP. just the extra benefits, like free prescriptions, cold weather payments etc, where they're not needed. I do actually personally think the bus passes are a good thing though, if they help encourage people to use their cars less, create less pollution and hopefully mean less older people are still driving when they shouldn't be for safety reasons.

I also agree that free bus passes are a good thing as it reduces the amount of cars in use and the money councils pay must keep the busses going as on the rare occasion I’ve used the bus, I’m also usually one of or even the only person paying. They wouldn’t be able to run a bus route to/ from my village on a few fares a day (the bus only funds every hour and a half).

I’ve just seen on Sky news that it’s likely the pension age will rise to 70 by 2050 so I’ll be working til I drop anyway. But I will be lucky enough to get a very good civil service pension and have paid off my mortgage etc so I absolutely should be one of the ones paying for prescriptions then.

Absolutely agree with this - the government seems to take an all or nothing approach and it's those just under the thresholds who lose out.

In all fairness it is the rich people who pay 45-50% tax who collectively subsidise prescriptions for everyone - so they should be able to get free prescriptions when they want to use it. The rich are also least likely to use other nhs services and so are a minimal ‘drain’ on the system.

But in your specific case I imagine you probably met a load of disabled (eg diabetes is a disability too) people or carers who got the nicest most comfortable cars they qualified for via mobility.

It could be argued that the gold plated civil service pensions are part of the problem. Government workers should just be paid higher salaries and have pension schemes align with private sectors.

I'm sure that the cost of free medication for over 60s is offset by much more expensive remedial treatment which would be needed if people didn't take that medication. It's fine saying 'you own your own house, you should pay for your prescription' but actually a good proportion of those seemingly 'rich' older people would simply not get the treatment they need or visit a GP if they thought it was going to be expensive.

But it wouldn't have to be expensive. They could get a pre-pay cert like everyone else

Agree, there's no way OP watched every single one leave and get into their car. What you see only tells part of the story.

So OP are you also against the other exemptions as quoted above or just over 60s?

How are people getting three months at a time? DH can only get a month, despite the advice for his condition being that it should be three months because of the need to take extra in certain circumstances.. There's a blanket one month only provided, regardless of circumstances to reduce waste - DH can't waste his medication, if he doesn't take it he would die.

And it makes no sense when you think about it. I have medication for anxiety, I take it as and when I need it and I order when I'm down to the last blister pack, but there would be nothing stopping me ordering every month and stockpiling it so the one month thing doesn't even achieve its goal.

I am 61 and just about use no medicine ever (eg one lot of lemsip in 10 years kind of jhardly any). However that is because I am lucky not to get ill so far. I have not had much free of charge in my life and worked full time since 1983 without a single break, only 2 weeks annual leave per baby, so free prescriptions does not seem too much to ask or else make everyone pay in the whole UK whoever they are which might be fairer and stop people over medicating themselves at tax payer expense.

So that would save 100 per person over 60 who needs medication each year.

You haven't mentioned capital gains "income".

This is how I see it. If every bloody thing is means-tested there is no point in anyone trying to improve their lives, as it could all be taken away at any time, or at least eroded by having to pay for things that would otherwise be free (and often are free to those who haven't paid in). The rich will be ok with this, as they can rise above it, and the poor will get the freebies but say poor, as the minute they earn a bit more they will lose them. Those in 'the middle' pay twice - in taxes and then for the things from which their middle incomes exclude them. Short of having a basic standard of living that no amount of saving or working can lift us above, who is to say what others 'can afford'?

Don't young people buy houses so that they'll have more savings and fewer outgoings when they are paid off? That's all that older people have done. The main difference is that older people don't usually have the opportunity to earn more money, so are on fixed incomes which can be disrupted by sudden changes in outgoings. Far better to increase taxes (from which older people are not exempt!) and give everyone free prescriptions than to start moralising over what people 'can afford' without having the first idea about their lives.

OP, I was pleasantly surprised when I recently got a prescription for free, mainly because I hadn’t needed one since I turned 60, and still work full-time.
However, the prescription was not for Ibuprofen or Paracetamol, but for medication that cannot be bought over the counter - and here is where the situation is nuts!
If doctors were to stop prescribing over-the-counter medication and excessive supplies of specialist medical equipment, and temporary aids like crutches, walking frames Etc. were returnable, then the NHS could save a fortune, and prescriptions for needed prescription-only items could be free.
When my DM died (not unexpectedly) we had to send multiple boxes of incontinence supplies to landfill, because the NHS/Pharmacy refused to take back even the unopened boxes.
If you multiply the cost of these for just one patient (30+ boxes of 30 ic pants), then multiply that by the number of patients who die before they’ve used all of their supplies, them I’m sure that free prescriptions would be viable for everyone - as long as the GP’s don’t keep sending new supplies before the old are nearly finished…

I don't think I'd be particularly keen to pursue a discussion with someone who uses language like "junkies" and "smackheads"

No, but I think capital gains should be taxed as income anyway, so by default, it would be the same rate as wages etc.

Its not earned money my father is on a final salary pension he's retiring next year and will have 50k per year and its protected if he lives 30 years that's a 1.5 million pension pot he can give it to his widow. He's not a very high earner a young person today has no chance of getting that much unless they have huge salaries they will have to retire at 70 and the pension pot will be much less. This is where some of the anger is coming from we are being asked to fund free things for the elderly who have more than enough while our taxes are rising and we will be working for longer to fund services that won't exist for us.

It should be equal based on means which is not ageist. It should be equal and I don't know why some of the older generation aren't upset at the way society is going. I'm so worried for my dcs future not mine i really hope she will be able to retire have a functioning health care system and have comfort.

@Anyotherdude agree the NHS should absolutely take back equipment like crutches. When my grandfather died we offered his perfectly good walking frame to the hospital that had been "looking after" him. There was a ward of 4 elderly men with 1 walking frame between them. The hospital refused as apparently they're not able to accept. We took it to the ward anyway and left it with another elderly man who was very happy to now be able to get to the bathroom on his own.
There are loads of very simple ways that money could be saved. I don't agree with free prescriptions for all though. Only for those that can't afford them. Have you seen the waiting lists for pretty much everything? Can you get a GP appointment? How long do you have to wait for an ambulance? The money is needed elsewhere and we can't afford to be wasting it.

It could be argued that the gold plated civil service pensions are part of the problem. Government workers should just be paid higher salaries and have pension schemes align with private sectors According to recent National Audit Office report, average Civil Service pension for a man is just over £11.000, for a woman a bit less than £6,000. When there were private final salary schemes around, they often paid up to two thirds of final salary, civil service was 50% of final salary.

When civil service pay was decided nationally rather than department by department, whatever figure was decided on was reduced by about 8% to take account of the non-contributory pension at the time. So civili servants were seeing their pay reduced by 8% even though they weren't formally contributing (except for the extra that had to be paid for a pension for their spouse if the civil servant pre-deceased them).

It's a good pension scheme, one of the benefits of the Civil Service which has never sought to attract people through pay. But not "gold plated"

I have an exemption certificate because I have one of the conditions on the list.
That condition doesn't make me more likely to get say a tooth absess or whatever but I wouldn't pay for those antibiotics.
This is an area where they could save money.
Boxes of unopened sealed meds should be returned when someone dies etc. It's madness