Aye, there's a finite amount available and it should be thought of like a cake. There's a slice goes here and another slice goes there so when a slice has gone, it ain't coming back so it has to be rationed out to maximise the effectiveness of what's there.
Should cost determine the treatment given for a condtion.
- Thread starter classic33
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
No need to be sorry, I thought given your previous posting you knew something else along similar lines.
AnythingButVanilla
Über Member
- Location
- London
I work for three consultants who do both NHS and private work so I do know how hospitals run and how the budgets work and I know for a fact they don't prescribe just for the hell of it, regardless of who's paying.
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
I can only get medication(legally) for the epilepsy on prescription & they are the only medication I get on prescription. Painkillers of any sort are ruled out due to interaction with the anti epilepsy medication.
If you use the common method of describing how bad the pain is on the 1 - 10 scale, with 10 being the worst. I can say that I've had ad a 9 - 9.5, where 10 is the point at where you'd black out due to the pain. And still pain killers could not be prescribed.
Heavens, it's not a criticism of you or your medication. Some people seem to take the view that we must never "ration health care", which IMO is cloud cuckoo land. It's all about where we spend our money to best effect. It would be even better if we had a National Health Service rather than a National Prescription Service, but there are no votes in making the citizens take more exercise and stop smoking.
Andrew_Culture
Internet Marketing bod
- Location
- The People's Republic Of Suffolk.
Sadly not, but by god I'm on your side.
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
I agree on/with parts of what you say, but, by not taking prescribed medication I would knowingly make the condition worse. This would then mean that most of any saving made would be wiped out by the resulting care required afterwards. Likewise if I'm denied it.
I fully sympathise with you working, as I do, with the NHS but your thread title asked the question 'Should cost determine the treatment for a condition?' to which the answer has to be yes, of course it should. There's a finite amount available and what's given to person A becomes scarcer for person B. That's the principle on which the system works. If you don't like it, there's not a lot of point complaining about it. Form a pressure group, enlist the help of your MP, anything that makes you the squeaky wheel that will get the oil. Of course, there are a lot of squeaky wheels about now and more and more are being heard from.
fossyant
Ride It Like You Stole It!
- Location
- South Manchester
Very simply, if A has been prescribed Z for a condition, they should have it - Z not X... Simple. The OP like all us stupid cyclists, are a bit aware of our bodies.
Don't get me started........
Don't get me started........
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
But is it not a false saving if by withholding treatment or using cheaper means, you increase the treatment required. More treatment normally equates to greater cost. I have over the last two days found out that prescribed treatment is being denied on the grounds of cost & cost alone. And in my case not by those who are qualified to do so. They do not want to provide on the basis of cost to themselves, not the system. As I had it explained to me today.
I have an eight day supply left, false promise made. After that the cost of treatment will increase. This from past experience of a major fit. Any treatment given for injuries will involve the more expensive drugs/methods, so that will wipe out any saving made elsewhere. A hospital bed & medical staff will be tied up because of it. Also non medical staff at the hospital, lets not forget the porters.
Maybe I should have worded the thread title differently, but thats done. I'll not seek to change it.
I have an eight day supply left, false promise made. After that the cost of treatment will increase. This from past experience of a major fit. Any treatment given for injuries will involve the more expensive drugs/methods, so that will wipe out any saving made elsewhere. A hospital bed & medical staff will be tied up because of it. Also non medical staff at the hospital, lets not forget the porters.
Maybe I should have worded the thread title differently, but thats done. I'll not seek to change it.
Trail Child
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
My neurologist writes 'no generic substitutes' on all the prescriptions for my AEDs. Canada has universal health care, but we don't have pharmacare, so my insurance company requires that on the script because they require the pharmacy to sell the cheapest generic version of the drugs. I know Canada has a different system, but AEDs are expensive and there can be some differences (eg side effects, bio-availability) between generic vs brand name AEDs, so maybe a call from your Neuro to the pharmacy in question is needed for some 'education.'
Noodley
Guest
Was she the one in the jungle?
Scruffmonster
Über Member
- Location
- London/Kent
This is insane. If you really think that this forum can help more than walking back into the GP surgery and raising merry hell, you're insane.
As a first last resort, go to A&E and ask for a new prescription and get what you need.
Nobody here can help. You could have solved this by now. Be bold. Demand.
Then if you have time, stand outside the pharmacy and direct everyone who tries to go in, to the nearest alternative. It works.
As a first last resort, go to A&E and ask for a new prescription and get what you need.
Nobody here can help. You could have solved this by now. Be bold. Demand.
Then if you have time, stand outside the pharmacy and direct everyone who tries to go in, to the nearest alternative. It works.
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
No, mine made the national headlines over housing arrangements.
Easy saying that, but try getting an appointment to see your GP so that the chemist can alter the treatment they are prepared to give. Not what is required for the condtion. Then take into consideration the time of year its happenning at.
A&E is a place I try to stay out off, too many visits over the years to various A&E's have left me knowing that those working in them have other, more important things to consider, than a person going in & asking for a new prescription. I don't think they'd even be able to do that. The most they've been able to give, over the years is what was brought in with me.
People on this forum have helped, so it can't be that insane. The GP is not where the problem was created. He prescribed a certain medication, a chemists took it upon themselves to say that they were not willing to provide what was prescribed. They would only supply the cheaper version, due to the cost to themselves. They refused to return the prescription, which the GP said they should in order to enable me to get it elsewhere.
Due to the fact that I'm working, I'm unable to stand outside, directing people elsewhere.
