Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7493 p306-307
15 March 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

• Category M medicines
• Community pharmacy (3)
• Primary care contracts
• 100-hour pharmacies
• PCT commissioning
• Prescription charges
• Medicines use reviews
• Dispensing
• Minor ailment scheme
• Adverse drug reactions
• Asthma management (2)
• Non-practising status
• The Society


Letters to the Editor

Prescription charges

Removing charges will lead to more waste

From Mr A. R. Korsner, MRPharmS

There cannot be a pharmacist who is not frustrated by wasted medicines. A dozen inhalers, 15 pairs of stockings, 30 insulin pens and 200 colostomy bags are a few that come to mind as I examine my yellow sacks.

To throw away (conservatively) hundreds of pounds of returned medicines and then be told the NHS has insufficient funds for a decent pay award or extended roles, stretches the mind.

There is a maxim that one does not appreciate what one gets for free. Many hard-working people on low pay have to go without medicines, even for illnesses such as cancer, because of the high cost, while some well-heeled people get free medicines because of exemptions. This is a gross abuse of the ethos of the NHS.

When patients pay for medicines they often query the appropriateness or necessity of an item. Patients with private prescriptions for 100 tablets may opt to take half the quantity and come back if they need more.

I have never, in 30-plus years, had a patient ask for half the quantity on an NHS prescription. Prescriptions should all be paid for, but at a more equitable level for all. A modest £1 or £2 charge would generate less waste and the savings could fund a better service.

Unlike Tessa Jenns (PJ, 1 March 2008, p243), I think Scotland and Wales have made a mistake in removing charges and will pay the penalty in higher drug bills and waste disposal costs. If every item attracts the same fee, paperwork is saved; there is an automatic deduction and ETP services would not be compromised.

I have been advocating this for years and cannot understand why it has not been considered. I can only conclude that political expediency has outweighed patient care.

Adrian Korsner
London

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (PCT commissioning)
Next Topic (Medicines use reviews)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal