Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

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:
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:
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:
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.

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.

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!

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:
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

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...

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:
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 23:22

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:
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.

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?

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:
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.

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.

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.)

Politicians247UnderwearExtinguishingService · 23/01/2026 23:56

EilonwyWithRedGoldHair · 23/01/2026 23:45

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.)

Yes, very much so. For proof of this, you only need to look at all of the people who live with severe tooth pain and other serious dental problems indefinitely, many of which get worse over time - because they simply cannot afford a dentist, whether an 'NHS' one (if available) or a private one.

Oneforallandallforone · 23/01/2026 23:56

You sound bitter about the person you know. And too quick to say give it to those on benefits.
There are many on benefits who don't need them. People who fudge their income, people who work cash in hand, people who pretend to be single parents. people who have many kids so they keep getting benefits.
Of course there are people who need them too.
The same as with those get free prescriptions.

Burntt · 24/01/2026 00:07

I think we need to come away from this idea of where to save money. It’s hurting all of us except the really rich. We need to be think about where to be investing the money the state actually has. For that my list is:

They could put more money into education particularly for SEND children many of whom are out of education due to no appropriate provision. These kids will become adults without qualifications and without family support will need to rely on the state to fund them. While still school age if out of school many are in expensive packages for very low quality provision- spend that money on appropriate SEND schools and these kids get a future at no extra cost to the tax payer.

they could put more money into the NHS reduce wait times. Early treatment could save many people from becoming disabled by their conditions and/or get those unable to work due to ill health back working sooner with prompt treatment thus relying less on the state. better maternity services would mean less PTSD from the experience less high cost interventions. Better outcomes for mothers and babies.

bring utilities back under the state. Profits then get ploughed back to the state not into the already rich pockets. Or prices come down significantly.

address misogyny and save the next generation from it. All research shows better for everyone with low levels of misogyny.

require minimum attendance for MPs in the house of commons and in their constituency offices. So the people who actually go for that job really do care not just want good expenses package. Reduce the expenses by providing a reasonable accommodation for MPs when in London - same standard for nurses accommodation. I think half our problem is our country is mismanaged by idiots who are privately educated and only out for what they can get for themselves and their rich friends. Joe blogs working full time minimum wage jobs around caring responsibility isn’t in their radar

address the issue of career landlords and corporation landlords. Tax % on income from property increases the more you make so those renting out their home while they are away for work or moved in with a partner still make money but those with 4,5,6 etc properties don’t make enough to justify the effort. Rents may not reduce but more housing stock will be available helping more people invest in their retirement nest eggs and need less support from the state in old age and housing benefits.

better public transport. Enabling the lower earners to travel for work and earn more like those who can afford cars can.

better funding and quality childcare. Sooo much evidence that better early years childcare leads to better long term outcomes for these children and less reliance on the state once adults. Makes no sense to me how the funding and grants for early years has been whittled back to nothing since the days of Tony Blair and every child matters. It’s kicking a bigger can down the road and we are seeing that play out now.

make absent fathers pay for their kids. Single mother can then can either afford to get back into work and/or these kids have better outcomes through not growing up in poverty. Less reliance on the state (although it anti CMS being factored into benefits calculations to protect those who’s ex withholds money). Continue CMS past children adult age and direct it into the mothers pension to balance out the hit her pension took raising those kids for him. Less cost to the state for poverty in the future elderly.

build more prisons and put money into proper rehabilitation. Particularly address the low sentenceing for violence againt women and girls. Men who rape essentially get the first one free these days- it’s no deterrent and adds to the fear women have in society. More stringent safeguarding for children. Children with trauma are more likely to have substance abuse issues and mental health struggles. Abused children are statistically more likely to abuse their own children and perpetuate the cycle (I dislike this stat nd think it should be separated by sex to see if it’s actually universal trait or more likely in abused men). Reduce the levels of abuse and long term it will reduce the cost to the state. Dealing with the first instance of a person breaching safeguarding will mean less financial compensation for the children failed and better outcomes for these kids and less reliance on state support if there are less mental health disorders resulting from childhood trauma. Eg the pedophile taxi driver rings, children home abuse, pedophilic medical staff. Many times there are multiple complaints that are dismissed before proper investigation is carried out.

Arlanymor · 24/01/2026 00:35

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 23:31

No, it’s not. It’s a disgrace.

It's a disgrace that different governments have different policies? All governments should be the same? Should we be like America then?

Arlanymor · 24/01/2026 00:36

LighthouseLED · 23/01/2026 23:38

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.

What's an age-related prescription?

Arlanymor · 24/01/2026 00:37

Samdelila · 23/01/2026 23:22

I think you should pay for your medication, yes.

I am not sure if you are dumb or just horrible. Why should I pay for it?

You don't know how it much it costs. You don't know how much I earn. But you have determined that I SHOULD pay for my medication? Just because I am not on benefits - but if I was on benefits I would be allowed to stay alive?

Hope your heart never fails, although I suspect you don't have one.

LighthouseLED · 24/01/2026 00:38

Arlanymor · 24/01/2026 00:36

What's an age-related prescription?

People over 60 currently get free prescriptions. I think this should be raised to align with state pension age.

hahagogomomo · 24/01/2026 00:41

What I don’t agree with is a handful of conditions are cherry picked for free prescriptions and many others requiring daily medication have to pay. I think all long term prescriptions (prescribed indefinitely should be free actually, but we should pay for short term prescriptions like antibiotics