Well would you beleive it?

[OrmIrian]

I've just got my HRT medication from the pharmacy. I had paid for it when I took the presription in. £7.65 as expected. I went in to get it and I was told I owed 7.65 because there were 2 charges on that item. I questioned it and the very apologetic female pharmacist was told they had a list of items that were made up of multiple drugs and were subject to multiple charges. And guess what? The vast majority of them were drugs for the use of women.

What a surprise

So my inconvenient body and it's messy hormonal changes are costing me £15.30 a month. Serves me right for being a woman eh?

So cross.

Clearly not a new issue! I got charged twice in a supermarket pharmacy but when I went to a chemist I only got charged once for ages - noe they have clearly realised they are losing out and have started charging twice for it. But according to this from 1995 nothing has changed:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-force-rethink-on-cost-of-hrt-1596038.html

You want one of these

Just read that independent article
That is preposterous
Stupid rule
What a load of shit

That article in the Indy is recent isn't it maybe they will sort it out (ha!)

Having said that trills post is pertinent, I know a chap with some things he needs regular prescriptions for and he buys an annual pass thing has done for years

DH works in this field, he suggests going back and chatting to the pharmacist and see if there is an alternative HRT that only has one charge.

Apparently there are different HRT drugs depending on where you are in the menopause, and also whether or not you've had a hysterectomy.

Thanks for the advice. The prepayment 'season ticket' thing might help as I also take ADs atm and athsma medications (I'd last 2 mins on a desert island ). But that isn't the point is it? If it's an 'anomaly' it should have been addresseed by now - but it only affects women so it hasn't been. Plus ca change.

That is a bit of a leap isn't it? I took medication for hypertension. There were two drugs but it was one prescription. One pharmacy charged me once, another one wanted two payments for the same drugs. I didn't think 'they are doing this because I am a man'.

This is one prescription for one lot of tablets though sanjay.
It is usual to be charged for each different item on a prescription, in this case it is one prescription with one item but the charge is for two.

And it happens with HRT ie something only women use

Okay, apologies if I misread. I am not sure what 'an item made up of multiple drugs' means, unless it is two or more packets of pills, hence my assumption. I think that one the whole though, pharma companies are hugely greedy rather than just sexist. Who sets pricing - the NHS, the pharmacy or the manufacturer?

It's one packet of tablets, and you have to pay two prescription charges.

The NHS prescription charge is set by the government and it seems that this is an anomoly with HRT which ought IMO to be corrected.

I'm just going to stay on the pill for as long as possible. I really take it for the oestrogen to sort out my PCOS symptoms not for BC but its still free.

Prescription charges are a mass of anomalies. My DH gets through a sackful every couple of weeks, and because one of the items is thyroxine - unrelated to his main set of more serious problems - he gets the whole lot gratis.

Sanjeev have to admit I'm a little unsure as well about "multiple drugs". Interested in the answers to your questions too - hopefully someone will be along soon!

Only wanted to add that for me, the prescription prepayment certificate saves me major £££. Also, did you know that you can then ask your GP to prescribe over-the-counter or shelf items as well? I have a prescription for my calcium supplements for example and this is completely covered by my PPC.

The other saver for repeat prescriptions like AD's (if you don't get a PPC) is to ask your GP to prescribe as many months as possible, rather than one month at a time.

oops x-post with SardineQueen

These tablets are in a blister pack of 28. The first 18 (I think) are white and the second 10 are green. They contain different hormone replacement drugs. It is charged as 2 prescriptions.

Got you Orm, cheers for that.

I don't think this is a conspiracy against women. It happens with other medications also. I once got prescribed medication for migraines, similarly it came in one box with two different colours of tablets to take. One at the onset of the migraine and the other a few hours later if it continued. I was charged for two prescriptions. I objected and thought the whole idea of it was ludicrous but lo and behold that was the rules, the pharmacist was correct. I don't agree with double charging but it doesn't only affect medications that only women can take.

Why is this not being publicised more?

Things don't have to be deliberately put in place to disadvantage women to be discriminatory. They just have to be put in place because the impact on women isn't considered or taken as seriously as the impact on men is. That is one of the things that is meant by male privilege. If men are the people in power and if the male experience is the general yard stick then women's experience becomes anomolous and injustices and imbalances stack up. The "conspiracy against women" isn't a group of people sitting in a room going "hmm, how can we charge women more?". It's people giving less voice to women's experience than men's and being less bothered if there is a negative impact on women.

SuchProspects - I agree, but my point is that it appears that people don't know about double charging in the first instance. For all we know there could be loads of drugs that are targetted specifically for men that are also being double charged. I don't know. If someone comes up with stats that prove that the vast majority of this behaviour is targetted at women and the specific drugs that they take, then yes it is absolutely outrageous.

The thread was started with the assumption that it was outrageous against women because it is for a drug that only women take. I only pointed out that it applies to other drugs also.

Of course it has a negative on women who have no choice but to pay for double prescriptions. But I think the argument is more about the double charging of all drugs rather than focusing on the one's that are applicable to women only.

I do see your point, but I don't think it's an unreasonable jump. We don't invest in research as a matter of routine into the impact of health decision on women as a whole so there is unlikely to be good statistical evidence. Nevertheless, at current rates (which are rising), 20% of the female population will take HRT. Unless there are similar, predominantly male treatments that's a significant weighting against women. Other groups may also be badly affected, some of them may be more male than female (just as an aside, migraines affect women at a much higher rate than men too - 3:1 if I recall correctly) but they would have to be large groups to counter one in five of all women.

Since it is women that have a reproductive cycle, with men having nothing similar, it is likely that women will continue to bear the brunt of such a rule with treatments targeted at the reproductive system. This last is particularly pertinent to the charge of institutional sexism. If hormone cycles were as important to men for health reasons I think it is likely such a charge would have been considered unreasonable earlier on, because it would have been much more obvious to those making the decisions that a different drug isn't just about treating something different.

Yes, I totally see your point too. It is such a huge percentage of women that it includes.
However, I have no knowledge about other drugs that are charged in this way and I only gave the example of the migraine ones at it was a personal experiene of mine.