Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

50cents per item for medical card users.

Options
  • 10-12-2009 9:59pm
    #1
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭


    As far as i understand that's the situation.
    Now consider this.
    An ill person on low income needs their medication on a mon/tue.
    But they are broke.
    'What? You might say '50cents? Get real'
    Well suppose there's four or five items on it.
    'So what 2.50. No biggy.'
    No i have worked with and seen medical card (low income) holders completly broke on a mon/tue, or whatever.
    'So what, borrow it.'
    Not always possible.

    So you have a potential situation where a person who needs medication can't access it until payday, with attendant risks therein.

    I think the govt are walking themselves into a possible legal mindfield.

    Thoughts?


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    KC JONES
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭KC JONES


    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    As far as i understand that's the situation.
    Now consider this.
    An ill person on low income needs their medication on a mon/tue.
    But they are broke.
    'What? You might say '50cents? Get real'
    Well suppose there's four or five items on it.
    'So what 2.50. No biggy.'
    No i have worked with and seen medical card (low income) holders completly broke on a mon/tue, or whatever.
    'So what, borrow it.'
    Not always possible.

    So you have a potential situation where a person who needs medication can't access it until payday, with attendant risks therein.

    I think the govt are walking themselves into a possible legal mindfield.

    Thoughts?
    4 or 5 items would be 2.50 max. Would they not know the week before the meds were running low and hang on to 2.50? Did the people you mention have absolutely no money not even a few bob savings?

    I do agree it is a bit much though. 50 cent per prescription would be OK


  • Options
    #3
    psycho-hope
    Registered Users Posts: 7,245 ✭✭✭psycho-hope


    ok i can see where everyone is coming from on this but, i work part time in a pharmacy and its amazing how much medication is returned unused to be destroyed, one on occasion ive seen over 300 euro worth of medication returned and that was from just one person. Hopefully if people have to pay a small amount towards there meds, they will check and only get the items they need, and not just everything because it is on the perscription.


  • Options
    #4
    seclachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 510 ✭✭✭seclachi


    Amongst all the other problems this budget will cause, this one has to be the most trivial in my books. I know theres hard up people out there, but I dont think asking them to set aside 2.50 is a huge deal, you have to take responsibility for your self at some level.

    I also think most pharmacy`s are very decent and if somebody genuinely was short the 2.50 they would let them pay it back at a later date.


  • Options
    #5
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,998 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    People are making a bigger deal of this than it is - most people on medical cards who are on long-term drugs get a prescription every three months. They will know for 84 or 90 days (depending on whether their GP uses a 28 or 30 day 'month') when their next renewal is going to be. At the very worst they'll be getting 28 day scripts.

    The charge is mainly to discourage the kind of people who have a sniffle and go to a GP demanding a script for antibiotics because "its free, its my right". Even 50c for that is likely to stop a fair amount of that wasterage. Also reduce people asking for paracetemol to be thrown on their normal script, etc, etc. All this happens frequently.


  • Options
    #6
    KC JONES
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭KC JONES


    psycho-hope wrote: »
    ok i can see where everyone is coming from on this but, i work part time in a pharmacy and its amazing how much medication is returned unused to be destroyed, one on occasion ive seen over 300 euro worth of medication returned and that was from just one person. Hopefully if people have to pay a small amount towards there meds, they will check and only get the items they need, and not just everything because it is on the perscription.
    it is not always the patients fault. Side effects and new tests /problems lead to changes in meds before they are used


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    KC JONES
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭KC JONES


    psycho-hope wrote: »
    ok i can see where everyone is coming from on this but, i work part time in a pharmacy and its amazing how much medication is returned unused to be destroyed, one on occasion ive seen over 300 euro worth of medication returned and that was from just one person. Hopefully if people have to pay a small amount towards there meds, they will check and only get the items they need, and not just everything because it is on the perscription.
    Do the pharmacy ever reuse them. would not surprise me with what i have seen from some pharmacies


  • Options
    #8
    psycho-hope
    Registered Users Posts: 7,245 ✭✭✭psycho-hope


    KC JONES wrote: »
    Do the pharmacy ever reuse them. would not surprise me with what i have seen from some pharmacies

    legally no they cant re-use them, any medication that is given out to a patient cant be taken back and then given to someone else, they have to be put in a special bin we have and then taken away to be destroyed.


  • Options
    #9
    psycho-hope
    Registered Users Posts: 7,245 ✭✭✭psycho-hope


    KC JONES wrote: »
    it is not always the patients fault. Side effects and new tests /problems lead to changes in meds before they are used

    true but when someone returns 2-3 of the same inhalers/boxes of meds, because they have loads of them at home it does make you wonder


  • Options
    #10
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    All valid points.
    But bear in mind some meds are needed immediately and can run out unexpectedly - such as athsma inhalers -very hard to gauge when it will.
    However the larger question is what if someone's health does suffer (severe athsma attack etc) poss to the point of death, will the govt find themselves at the brunt of a highly damaging legal contest?

    I think they have poss left themselves open.
    Anyone with legal knowledge have any idea?


  • Options
    #11
    maryjane007
    Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭maryjane007


    i think its a foot in the door once the fee is there they may well start inflating it in future budgets


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    chocgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭chocgirl


    I think it was unfortunate that this charge had to be put in place but I think it may be a good idea in that it will tackle the widespread abuse of the system. The amount of paracetemol, solpadene and difene gel that is being passed from medical card holder to non medical card holding members of family is ridiculous. Prepare to see the sale of such items plummet.


  • Options
    #13
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,083 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    maryjane007 wrote: »
    i think its a foot in the door once the fee is there they may well start inflating it in future budgets

    I think that's probably the masterplan.

    Who gets to keep it, the government or the pharmacist?


  • Options
    #14
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    Perhaps I should have framed my question differently.
    If an individual can contest and possibly prove suffering due to this policy, will the compesentation cost much more than the policy saves?


  • Options
    #15
    Heroditas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,505 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    psycho-hope wrote: »
    legally no they cant re-use them, any medication that is given out to a patient cant be taken back and then given to someone else, they have to be put in a special bin we have and then taken away to be destroyed.


    It's terrible that these medicines can't be re-packaged and used.
    Surely they should examine this possibility?
    I wonder what the monetary value of returned, and subsequently binned, medicines every year amounts to.


  • Options
    #16
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Like others have said, it's not about raising revenue it's about changing behaviours. I can't see why it is a bad thing, it's a relatively small amount (perhaps should be higher) and will hopefully stop the wasteful hoarding of "free" drugs.


  • Options
    #17
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    My initial post was primarily to illustrate a possible situation which might arise and could be argued through the courts.

    1/ Is such an action possible?
    2/ Will it result in punitive damages against the govt, negating the savings made?


  • Options
    #18
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,083 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    Perhaps I should have framed my question differently.
    If an individual can contest and possibly prove suffering due to this policy, will the compesentation cost much more than the policy saves?

    I suppose it must be a question of applying for legal-aid, because not having 50c for a prescription obviously means there's no money for lawyers etc...


  • Options
    #19
    seclachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 510 ✭✭✭seclachi


    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    All valid points.
    But bear in mind some meds are needed immediately and can run out unexpectedly - such as athsma inhalers -very hard to gauge when it will.
    However the larger question is what if someone's health does suffer (severe athsma attack etc) poss to the point of death, will the govt find themselves at the brunt of a highly damaging legal contest?

    I think they have poss left themselves open.
    Anyone with legal knowledge have any idea?

    If somebody has run out of inhaler, then surely they should go to a hospital to get one ASAP ? I have some experience in these matters, and I find that pharmacy's are very socially responsible, especially if they know you over a long term, which they will if you have an illness (there's also the element that by going to there pharmacy there making a few bob off you), they will give you the meds you need, even if its a couple of days supply until you get money sorted. I have been in similar situations with out a prescription for a long term drug, but they gladly supplied some until I got it sorted. I honestly cant see my pharmacist telling me to get lost because I cant come up with 2.50


  • Options
    #20
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    My initial post was primarily to illustrate a possible situation which might arise and could be argued through the courts.

    1/ Is such an action possible?
    2/ Will it result in punitive damages against the govt, negating the savings made?
    Why is this any different to someone not on social welfare walking into a pharmacy and not having any money? The state provides social welfare assistance, it isn't trying to be your mother.


  • Options
    #21
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    Yes, but i think it may leave the state open to costly litigation.
    Taking that action will be an interest group, not the indiv themselves.

    Anyone with legal expertise?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,998 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Heroditas wrote: »
    It's terrible that these medicines can't be re-packaged and used.
    Surely they should examine this possibility?
    I wonder what the monetary value of returned, and subsequently binned, medicines every year amounts to.

    Tamper risk is too high, unfortunately.
    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    Yes, but i think it may leave the state open to costly litigation.
    Taking that action will be an interest group, not the indiv themselves.

    Anyone with legal expertise?

    Enough (from working in medical, not law) to tell you there is no difference, at all, to someone not being able to pay for medication privately. The medical card is a privilidge under the Health Act, not a right. It can be withdrawn or changed at any time.

    Any challenge would be deemed ineligible extremely quickly. Also, those with no money can't easily sue...


  • Options
    #23
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    hmmm wrote: »
    Why is this any different to someone not on social welfare walking into a pharmacy and not having any money? The state provides social welfare assistance, it isn't trying to be your mother.

    Because 'a state of accustomed relationship pre-existed' for the med card holder


    I'm guessing here, but i think it could be an interesting one.


  • Options
    #24
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    Because 'a state of accustomed relationship pre-existed' for the med card holder

    I'm guessing here, but i think it could be an interesting one.
    A state of wha?


  • Options
    #25
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    hmmm wrote: »
    A state of wha?

    :D

    Em, is there a legal forum and how could i move this to that forum?


  • Options
    #26
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,998 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    Because 'a state of accustomed relationship pre-existed' for the med card holder


    I'm guessing here, but i think it could be an interesting one.

    One of the things you agree to on getting a medical card is that it can be withdrawn or altered at any time. No legal case at all.


  • Options
    #27
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    MYOB wrote: »
    One of the things you agree to on getting a medical card is that it can be withdrawn or altered at any time. No legal case at all.

    Dunno.
    This isn't about the withdrawal of the card, rather it's change of use and possible consequences.

    Would like to hear a few legal voices on this.
    How to i contact the mod and move this forum?


  • Options
    #28
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,998 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Lemondrop kid wrote: »
    Dunno.
    This isn't about the withdrawal of the card, rather it's change of use and possible consequences.

    Would like to hear a few legal voices on this.
    How to i contact the mod and move this forum?

    What part of "changed" don't you understand?

    You can ask the legal voices, but you're going to get an identical answer.


  • Options
    #29
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    MYOB wrote: »


    Enough (from working in medical, not law) to tell you there is no difference, at all, to someone not being able to pay for medication privately. The medical card is a privilidge under the Health Act, not a right. It can be withdrawn or changed at any time.

    Any challenge would be deemed ineligible extremely quickly. .

    Hi, didnt see that post. you might have something there


  • Options
    #30
    Lemondrop kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Lemondrop kid


    MYOB wrote: »
    What part of "changed" don't you understand?

    You can ask the legal voices, but you're going to get an identical answer.

    :D:D:D

    Careful there Ted
    ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    Folks I have no problem in paying 50c per item. My problem and my belief is that once you start paying something the price only goes up.

    The plastic bag tax would be a brilliant example of this.

    I think the goverment would be far better changing there system of payments to GP's and pharmacies instead of per item it would be per perscription.


Advertisement