To think the NHS should just bite the bullet and provide weight loss jabs privately?

[lostinthememory]

It was in the news the other day that half a million people are paying for weight loss jabs privately every month in the UK.

Surely the NHS could operate a private pharmacy that sells these jabs at a lower cost than other private pharmacies, and generate a huge amount of money? Assuming each dose was £100, that would be £50 million a month for the NHS, while people are also easing the burden of obesity. It would also remove a lot of the shady prescribing practices that occur at the moment.

Why haven't they considered this?

I personally think it's a great idea. It's not a 'mandatory' or only way to lose weight. Frankly, it's a shortcut for many. If people can and want to pay for that option, the NHS could desperately use the money.

As a Canadian, where we do have legal and taxed cannabis, it is not a bad idea, but it isn't a money maker really either
I am in the industry, and there is a huge amount of small growers going out of business because there is so little profit

Not substantial enough for a drug that's in demand globally, no. I'm guessing you haven't worked within the NHS and are guessing?

@Mounjarry even if they "only" generated £8 per prescription, that's £48 million for the NHS a year that is going elsewhere.

Public sector doesn’t usually run as cheaply as private sector. It’s already a market with competition and multiple providers so what makes you think the NHS can do it cheaper apart from the bulk buy idea?

But they won't generate that when you factor in the administrative costs. I don't know it just makes me laugh when people come up with 'brilliant' ideas that would never work.

I don't believe Sharon Osborne for a minute The truth is, when you come off the jags, apatite returns. Sharon is lying or has an eating disorder. The drugs are currently under trial for anti dementia properties. They are also being further tested for potential cardiovascular benefits identified in studies. They hugely reduce inflammation and they lower high blood pressure. There has been no cancer link shown in humans.

Yes there are risks to any and every drug that's rolled out.
Why is all the hand ringing reserved for anti obesity treatments? New drugs come online every year and nobody says Jack shit about thrm.

Where are the staff going to magic up from the assess, prescribe and be on hand for enquiries etc?

This

Private pharmacies aren’t offering the support and oversight the NHS does whilst on these drugs and any profit you think the NHS could make, would be dwarfed by the costs of supporting patients on these drugs. Don’t get me started on the ethics of such an enterprise.

The ethics of what? Prescribing medication?

Which is why proper trials are important. Will prescribing the jabs make a difference to the health of the population? If yes, then bring it on, if no, then limit it to those it will help.

@MyrtleLion surely it's about net benefit?

Reducing obesity has a net benefit for the entire population. The prescription of any individual medication doesn't impact everyone, but it's about the benefit. For example my dad's inhaler prescription doesn't help my health, but it helps everyone by keeping him out of hospital.

How do they work out if it is a net benefit without doing a trial?

What if it leads to severe malnutrition and lots of people get very ill from not eating properly?

Or on a positive side they discover it absolutely is game changing and will help a lot of people? Then when the moaners ask why are we spending millions on these injections, they can say because ot saves us three times txt much in diabetes care, replacement hips and eye issues.

@MyrtleLion it's very obvious this doesn't happen, as half a million people are on them without these effects.

But re clinic time spent. Don't we expect to be rolling out mj in the future anyway? So eventually that clinical time will be used for normal nhs treatment.

On the other hand. I don't think the NHS needs to understand cut the other online pharmacies. If it was equivalent or nearly equivalent to the lowest cost ones then I think a lot of people would choose that. It means picking it up from your local pharmacy instead of being delivered warm to your door step. The nurse could talk people through their first jab.

Also your numbers are monthly. 50 million per month!! People would only need one visit to start off with then a repeating prescription.

Do we know that overweight people would probably see the doctor more often anyway? For diabetes, joint pain or seeking advice about losing weight? Why not exchange that for a supervisory visit and save money and lives long term.

It would lend a degree of legitimacy that the online pharmacies don't have. I'm sure lots of people feel cautious about ordering from a faceless online company or feel they can't tell anyone they are on it for the same reason. If it's an NHS medication then the stigma is lessened and the customer base grows.

I think it's a great idea but who knows if it's possible with how the structure of the NHS works. Even if it's agreed it will take a long time to activate.

For how long? Maybe in 10 years there will be problems.

And as for that as a reason, millions of people have taken ecstasy quite safely. Should we decriminalise it?

@MyrtleLion these drugs (GLP-1s) have been in use for a long, long time.

Personally I am in favour of certain drugs being decriminalised and regulated, so that argument doesn't really wash with me

Personally I agree with you about ecstasy, but we are not formally prescribing it to millions of people tonsave the NHS money.

I do think that we need rigorous trials for this kind of thing. Because we need the evidence to justify the cost.

@MyrtleLion the evidence is there to justify why it has already been in use. Ecstasy is a little different to a weight loss medication

Not in the UK for the proposed usage.

I agree OP. I can't afford the full cost of a weight loss jab, but I'd glady pay half, as I could rustle that amount up.

@MyrtleLion so you want the NHS to waste more money on studies to show what the previous bodies of research have already shown?