Government proposes raising qualifying age for free NHS prescriptions to 66 years

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northerner

Northerner

Admin (Retired)
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
People in England aged 60–65 years could be expected to pay for prescriptions, under a new proposal from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

Currently, patients aged over 60 years are exempt from prescription charges, but the DHSC has proposed raising this to align with the state pension age (SPA) of 66 years.

Under the government’s preferred plan, published on 1 July 2021, the raised qualifying age would be phased in by potentially allowing patients aged over 60 years at the time of the regulation change to continue to claim free prescriptions.

The DHSC has estimated that the proposals could generate “up to £300m more for the NHS by 2026 to 2027”.

In an impact assessment, published alongside the proposal, the government argued that “blanket exemptions for people aged 60 and over are no longer appropriate”, given that in 2019/2020 around 60% of people aged between 60 and 65 were “still economically active and potentially able to meet the cost of their prescriptions”.

pharmaceutical-journal.com

Government proposes raising qualifying age for free NHS prescriptions to 66 years

People in England aged 60–65 years could be expected to pay for prescriptions, under a new proposal from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Currently, patients aged over 60 years are exempt from prescription charges, but the DHSC has proposed raising this to align with the state...
pharmaceutical-journal.com pharmaceutical-journal.com

They'll be coming for the diabetics next :(
 
Well, it was only 60 in the first place, because the state retirement age for ladies was lower than for men, hence one age for females and a different one for men would long have been sexually discriminating hence illegal - but when they brought ladies into line with men, they should have done that too - ie normal UK state retirement pension age whenever that is for the individual.

Has nowt whatsoever at all to do with the rules for chronic conditions or free prescriptions for those claiming other benefits whilst below state retirement age.

So - don't get sidetracked by thinking it will include those things, and that it is obviously the thin end of the wedge. Yes - those who are charged with the responsibility for wording the Law and procedure concerned do absolutely need to ensure that they don't go too far when enforcing the new wording, which is why the likes of you and I aren't given the job of drafting Laws and regulations!

(Even if the Lower House were all stupid enough to agree it - think there are more than enough disabled folk in the Upper House to scotch it, pdq. I'm struggling to name any disabled MPs still young enough for it to affect them - Theresa May would have been one, so would Dave Nellist)
 
England is the only country in the UK to charge for prescriptions. This just reveals that they use it as a Health Tax - or I should say, an Illness Tax. It’s actually more or less cost neutral to allow free prescriptions to all, because you remove all the arcane infrastructure involved in applying costs. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have done all the sums and realised that, but the English just can’t resist a cash cow, particularly if it comes from the working poor who can barely afford housing and food costs.

And yes, diabetes will be next, inasmuch as only diabetes treatment will be free. Any other illness, you’ll have to pay for. That’s the glaring anomaly that applies to the bizarre list of conditions that allow you to get free prescriptions that was compiled half a century ago.

Also, it won’t be £300m that’s generated, that assumes the changes will be zero cost, and the same with monitoring it.
 
In general more medications are needed as people get older so the cost of those can mean that people are not taking the medication they need because they can't afford it but are not able to claim assistance. It becomes a choice of eating or heating putting your health at risk either way. There will be people with low income but not low enough to claim exemption for which having to pay for a multitude of meds would tip them over. If we had to pay for the meds my OH and I are on it would be substantial with 12 meds between us.
I think some people who have to pay for meds are too scared to go to the doctor for fear of being prescribed meds they cannot afford.
My daughter used to say when she worked in Boots pharmacy, people would ask was there any they didn't really need to take if they had been prescribed several things. This was after they changed it from being per prescription to per item that people needed to pay for.
 
If you are not exempt you can buy a prepayment certificate, which is worthwhil if you are on 2 or more items regularly a month.
 
Whereas my mate's mum, a lifelong asthmatic, said that was actually a direct benefit of getting old for her, not having to invest in a season ticket every year.
 
There are some surprising omissions on the list of exemptions for chronic conditions.
 
The trouble with prepayment certificates is they are a big one off investment for folk on low income.
 
I think it’s bad enough now for those who are on a low income but not low enough to get any help.
I mean if I was Young and not diabetic I would have to shell out
For 6 different tablets and two inhalers every month
Similar for my dad too.
And if money was tight ie do I pay my rent or meds what a choice to h@veto make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top