Would you be willing to be part of the UK to get better healthcare?

Anita Blow

maryishere wrote: »

I do not think "subsidy" is the reason drugs are so much cheaper in the UK, Spain, France etc compared to Ireland. I think it would be against EC rules for an EC country to subsidise its own manufacrturing base anyway.


And if seiously you think there is an economic incentive for countries which are "major players" in the "global pharma industry " to "subsidise drugs" as you claim, how come drugs are not cheaper in Ireland so? After all, Ireland has an extremely strong reputation for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing. These industries are well developed and growing strongly throughout the country – Ireland currently hosts 9 of the world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies and 18 of the top 25 medtech companies.;)

Subsidy is the exact reason. We subsidise the cost of our prescription drugs through the Drugs Payment Scheme. Except instead of subsidising at point of sale (like in France, UK), we place a cap on how much a family has to pay in a month.

And there absolutely is an economic incentive to get approved in places like the UK. Getting a drug approved in Ireland is no more big news than getting it approved in Malta or Belgium or any other small country. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the UK (their pharmacoeconomics board) is the single most important medical regulatory body in Europe, and on par with the CDC in terms of global importance. That is a fact.

Britain's NICE has a positive overall effect on sales of branded drugs and its data is set to become an increasingly important marketing tool, the head of Eli Lilly UK said on Friday.

http://www.apmhealtheurope.com/print_story.php?numero=1597

Approval by NICE speeds up approval in many other jurisdictions, not just in Ireland and Europe (our own pharmacoeconomics board essentially copies & pastes the cost-benefit determinations from NICE), but Australia, New Zealand, Canada and many other countries. NICE approval also boosts sales massively. Additionally, it is NICE guidelines which are used as standard in many hospitals in many countries, and the drugs they recommend influence those which doctor's prescribe so to get their drug included in NICE guidelines is a nice marketing boost. NICE guidelines would be used across the entire HSE in every area of clinical practice.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

July last year was the currency peak in the exchange rates. Fairer to use an average exchange rate over a number of years.

Pick any exchange rate you like - it's still arbitrary.

maryishere wrote: »

Yes, you were given evidence from a report a few pages back the NHS is better than our system.

Are you referring to the report that I produced, showing that the NHS and HSE are both pretty average?

maryishere wrote: »

I do not think "subsidy" is the reason drugs are so much cheaper in the UK, Spain, France etc compared to Ireland.

It is exactly the reason. For example, in the UK, patients pay exactly the same amount (£8.40) for all subscription drugs. This can be further subsidised through prescription prepayment certificates if a patient is buying a large number of prescription items.

maryishere wrote: »

And if seiously you think there is an economic incentive for countries which are "major players" in the "global pharma industry " to "subsidise drugs" as you claim, how come drugs are not cheaper in Ireland so? After all, Ireland has an extremely strong reputation for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing. These industries are well developed and growing strongly throughout the country – Ireland currently hosts 9 of the world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies and 18 of the top 25 medtech companies.;)

How many of them are indigenous? How many of them have invested heavily in R&D in Ireland over a number of decades?

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

It is exactly the reason. For example, in the UK, patients pay exactly the same amount (£8.40) for all subscription drugs. This can be further subsidised through prescription prepayment certificates if a patient is buying a large number of prescription items.

The UK is a great system so if the consumer pays so much less for drugs as we all know, less hospital trolleys, shorter waiting lists etc.
You were already given figures showing the taxpayer in the UK per head spends less on the NHS than we spend on the HSE. Maybe economy of scale, better organization, less wasteful management, less corruption by vested interests and critical mass of population centres helps the UK case.

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you referring to the report that I produced, showing that the NHS and HSE are both pretty average?

As pointed out to you before however, the fact that England etc is 8 and 6 countries higher than Ireland in the "league table" of European countries is a significant enough difference. Neith the UK or Ireland are at the very top or very bottom of the European countries league chart, but the UK is higher than Ireland according to the charts. And if you look at 5.2 of the report, it shows Ireland scores only just above 400 on the chart, the UK scores above 500, showing the UK delivers approx 25% more bang for the buck than Ireland.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

The UK is a great system...

Why do you keep insisting this is the case?

maryishere wrote: »

As pointed out to you before however, the fact that England etc is 8 and 6 countries higher than Ireland in the "league table" of European countries is a significant enough difference.

No, it isn't, because the scores awarded to all of those countries are very similar.

Suppose all the countries ranked between England and Ireland all scored higher than England, while Ireland and England retained the same scores and were therefor placed one after the other in the table. By your logic, that would somehow make the difference between Ireland and England less significant, which makes absolutely no sense.

maryishere wrote: »

And if you look at 5.2 of the report, it shows Ireland scores only just above 400 on the chart, the UK scores above 500, showing the UK delivers approx 25% more bang for the buck than Ireland.

And if you look at the text right below that chart, it states that the methodology used is far from reliable, but you'd rather ignore that because it suits your argument to do so.

Anita Blow

Also if we're talking about 'bang for our buck', a study performed by the UK's Royal Society of Medicine found that Ireland ranked No. 1 in the world for cost-effectiveness. It placed ahead of the UK & New Zealand in 2nd and 3rd. The study shows that Ireland saves more lives per euro spent than any other country.

maryishere

Anita Blow wrote: »

Also if we're talking about 'bang for our buck', a study performed by the UK's Royal Society of Medicine found that Ireland ranked No. 1 in the world for cost-effectiveness. It placed ahead of the UK & New Zealand in 2nd and 3rd. The study shows that Ireland saves more lives per euro spent than any other country.

The study says"The "surprising" findings show the NHS saving more lives for each pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than any other country apart from Ireland over 25 years.
Half way down the report the author of the study says Ireland's position today would be significantly different – because its economy has shrunk. "I think Ireland would have slipped back today"

In Ireland half the population does not trust our public health system and many struggling families pay €2,500 for private health insurance ....double taxation. Does the study above reflect private health care spend?

karma_

djpbarry, you're a better man than me. How you have not wanted to plunge you head into a burning vat of molten metal by this stage is anyones guess.

maryishere

Its 6 or 7 years since Dr Michael O’Keeffe (a well-respected hospital consultant who has worked for many years in the public and private sectors in Dublin, and a former senior figure in the Irish Hospital Consultants Association) said publically that the public system in Ireland was completely ineffectual, inefficient, controlled by vested interests, poorly managed, and simply does not work.
He described in detail the various problems.
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=15197

Different government minister have failed to tackle the problems very successfully.


Other people have come to similar conclusions several years ago, and has much changed since?
They said some waiting lists to see some specialists in HSE-run hospitals can run to several years, in a few cases longer than five years.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/john-crown-inefficiency-is-name-of-the-game-for-hse-and-troika-28821645.html


But tis ok for the vested interests.;)

karma_ wrote: »

How you have not wanted to plunge you head into a burning vat of molten metal by this stage is anyones guess.

The poor unfortunate people who are years on HSE waiting lists, and their relatives, are the ones who have felt like plunging their heads into a burning vat of molten metal.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

Its 6 or 7 years since Dr Michael O’Keeffe (a well-respected hospital consultant who has worked for many years in the public and private sectors in Dublin, and a former senior figure in the Irish Hospital Consultants Association) said publically that the public system in Ireland was completely ineffectual, inefficient, controlled by vested interests, poorly managed, and simply does not work.

First of all, that’s just one person’s opinion. Secondly, nobody has argued that the HSE does not have its problems.

To be honest, I’m struggling to understand what your point is at this stage.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

First of all, that’s just one person’s opinion.

lol. You have been presented with lots of different peoples opinions and different reports and statistics showing how relatively poor our health system is. Some people do well out of it though. The number of national directors in the HSE who can earn up to €147,000 a year – more than most EU prime ministers – has risen from 11 to 15 in 3 years. As wards are unable to open because of a shortage of nurses and other skilled medical staff the number of senior managers risen by 30% since 2012.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/health-news/number-hse-managers-drawing-huge-6351832

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

lol. You have been presented with lots of different peoples opinions and different reports and statistics showing how relatively poor our health system is.

No, I haven't. You just keep repeating over and over again that the HSE is terrible while the NHS is amazing.

It's patent nonsense.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

You just keep repeating over and over again that the HSE is terrible while the NHS is amazing.

The various reports have not said it is "amazing", just that its is better than the HSE, they do not have waiting lists as long as ours, keep people on trolleys as much, medicine does not cost as much there etc. Oh, and the reports showed in black 'n white it costs the UK taxpayer a bit less per head of population than the HSE costs ours. Not surprising considering the waste and inefficiency in our system. Another fact worth considering is that half the population here, despite struggling with mortgages, rents and other high cost of living, think so little of our public system that they pay thousands to have private health insurance. Double taxation.
But at least you are doing well out of it, so good for you.;)

porsche boy

Id be interested in their motor tax rates, and their insurance quotes.

NIMAN

Another great piece of publicity for the so-called state of the art NHS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36053400

If this story was in Ireland, you'd hear all the crying about how this wouldn't happen in England.

maryishere

porsche boy wrote: »

Id be interested in their motor tax rates, and their insurance quotes.

Its not hard to find out.

NIMAN wrote: »

If this story was in Ireland, ....

stories like that happen in Ireland all the time, with often big compo paid out by the HSE, no big deal. Some big solicitors firms even specialise in medical negligence cases.

NIMAN

They are a much larger economy than us, is it fair to compare motor and insurance rates?

maryishere

set up a separate thread on that if you like.

Or what point are you trying to make?

Eugene Norman

maryishere wrote: »

The various reports have not said it is "amazing", just that its is better than the HSE, they do not have waiting lists as long as ours, keep people on trolleys as much, medicine does not cost as much there etc. Oh, and the reports showed in black 'n white it costs the UK taxpayer a bit less per head of population than the HSE costs ours. Not surprising considering the waste and inefficiency in our system. Another fact worth considering is that half the population here, despite struggling with mortgages, rents and other high cost of living, think so little of our public system that they pay thousands to have private health insurance. Double taxation.
But at least you are doing well out of it, so good for you.;)

I think these minor differences aren't really enough to, you know, end sovereignty.

The NHS is marginally better than the HSE. We have better broadband.

maryishere

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The NHS is marginally better than the HSE. We have better broadband.

People in some areas of Ireland who do not have broadband might disagree with you about broadband. But no doubt the people waiting years on HSE waiting lists, or days on trolleys, or struggling to pay private health insurance here each year, are delighted some people here have decent broadband.

"Ireland has got a pretty fraught relationship with Broadband, and the EU's latest Digital Economy and Society Index has confirmed that we are way behind when compared to the other countries in the EU.

While 96% of Irish households are 'covered' by fixed broadband, this is both below the EU average of 97% and misleading. Only 65% of Irish households actually take-up this broadband, which lands us in 20th place of 28 EU countries for broadband take-up."
http://www.joe.ie/news/research-shows-irelands-relationship-with-broadband-is-one-of-the-worst-in-the-eu/532451

Eugene Norman

maryishere wrote: »

People in some areas of Ireland who do not have broadband might disagree with you about broadband. But no doubt the people waiting years on HSE waiting lists, or days on trolleys, or struggling to pay private health insurance here each year, are delighted some people here have decent broadband.

"Ireland has got a pretty fraught relationship with Broadband, and the EU's latest Digital Economy and Society Index has confirmed that we are way behind when compared to the other countries in the EU.

While 96% of Irish households are 'covered' by fixed broadband, this is both below the EU average of 97% and misleading. Only 65% of Irish households actually take-up this broadband, which lands us in 20th place of 28 EU countries for broadband take-up."
http://www.joe.ie/news/research-shows-irelands-relationship-with-broadband-is-one-of-the-worst-in-the-eu/532451

The "take up" of broadband is not related to its availablity.

As I've said before Mary. The NHS is available to you. It's about 90 minutes drive from where you live. If the U.K. is so impressive you can live there and still return to your parents house on a weekend. On the same island. And yet, you don't.

maryishere

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The "take up" of broadband is not related to its availablity.

As I've said before Mary. The NHS is available to you. It's about 90 minutes drive from where you live. If the U.K. is so impressive you can live there and still return to your parents house on a weekend. On the same island. And yet, you don't.

So you are stalking me now are you?
Do you think everyone in Dublin should - after paying taxes in Ireland and taking out private health insurance in Ireland, at no small expense - go out of the jurisdiction for medical treatment? Incidentally some people do - one of the RTE employees went public recently about how he went to Sweden for some medical procedure.

If you have you get personal it says more about you that about me, and shows you have lost whatever argument you had.

Leogirl

didn't read the whole thread, sorry in advance. Knowing boards its probably way off the op now......

I have ms+ just over cancer, had a babye- no!!! I've had amazing treatment+ follow up care. maternity care here is fantastic. Cancer care, I'm cured-I can't thank the hospital enough. My 7 mth old keeps her mum.

Not a hope would I choose to be part of England, Britain, UK just to improve our system. I'd rather a new system of government that don't cost so much, screw us over+ just listen to the electorate. Dream world.....

maryishere

Leogirl wrote: »

I have ms+ just over cancer, had a babye- no!!! I've had amazing treatment+ follow up care. maternity care here is fantastic. Cancer care, I'm cured-I can't thank the hospital enough. My 7 mth old keeps her mum.

Very best wishes and congratulations and that is great news. Yes many front line staff here are fantastic (just as many front line staff elsewhere are fantastic too I bet - there are a lot of good human beings in the world). Well done to all.

recipio

We don't have enough money for an excellent health service.In fact we will never have enough thanks to independence and our low tax base so logically we should never have left the UK. Isn't it obvious. ?

maryishere

recipio wrote: »

We don't have enough money for an excellent health service.

The figures provided earlier in this thread show the taxpayer here actually spends more per head of population than the taxpayers in the UK do on theirs, but that our health system is worse, with longer waiting lists, more people on trolleys, 50% of the people here in Ireland having (expensive) private health insurance (double taxation) etc.

ancapailldorcha

maryishere wrote: »

The figures provided earlier in this thread show the taxpayer here actually spends more per head of population than the taxpayers in the UK do on theirs, but that our health system is worse, with longer waiting lists, more people on trolleys, 50% of the people here in Ireland having (expensive) private health insurance (double taxation) etc.

This isn't a fair comparison at all though. The UK's population is significantly greater than Ireland's. The NHS's budget therefore is about 10 times greater than the HSE's (£116 billion compared to €13 billion respectively).

maryishere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't a fair comparison at all though. The UK's population is significantly greater than Ireland's. The NHS's budget therefore is about 10 times greater than the HSE's (£116 billion compared to €13 billion respectively).

As I pointed out before, the mid-2014 population estimates show that the UK population was 64.6million. The population of Ireland was only approx 4.6 million. In other words, the population of the UK is 14.04 that of Ireland. So the comparison can be made.
Bear in mind out system is not as good as the UK system and half the population here have private health insurance too ( double taxation).

ancapailldorcha

maryishere wrote: »

As I pointed out before, the mid-2014 population estimates show that the UK population was 64.6million. The population of Ireland was only approx 4.6 million. In other words, the population of the UK is 14.04 that of Ireland. So the comparison can be made.
Bear in mind out system is not as good as the UK system and half the population here have private health insurance too ( double taxation).

Comparing expenditure per head in this context is pointless in this scenario given the disparity between the two countries' populations.

maryishere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Comparing expenditure per head in this context is pointless in this scenario given the disparity between the two countries' populations.

As I pointed out to you, the population of the UK is 14.04 that of Ireland, so you can do the rest of the maths yourself.:D:D:D:D
Of course some people here do very well out of the Irish system. I am looking at it more in terms of the lack of value the taxpayer here gets, and the cost to the consumer here. And do not forget half the population here have private health insurance too ( double taxation), and no small cost.

n.b if you are trying to make the point that we have lack of economy of scale, less purchasing power when it comes to purchasing of drugs, more croneyism etc, I take that point.

ancapailldorcha

maryishere wrote: »

n.b if you are trying to make the point that we have lack of economy of scale, less purchasing power when it comes to purchasing of drugs, more croneyism etc, I take that point.

This was exactly the point. If 2 nations spend the same per head but one country has 14 times the population of the other then the comparison is unfair.

maryishere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This was exactly the point. If 2 nations spend the same per head but one country has 14 times the population of the other then the comparison is unfair.

If it makes such a big difference -we pay a lot more for a worse service - then would you agree with the OP : would you be willing to be part of the UK to get better healthcare?

ancapailldorcha

maryishere wrote: »

If it makes such a big difference -we pay a lot more for a worse service - then would you agree with the OP : would you be willing to be part of the UK to get better healthcare?

We're not though. Overall, the UK pays 10 times more. I outlined this above. I live there so it's a moot point for me.

maryishere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Overall, the UK pays 10 times more.

and their population is over 14 times more, and they do not have such long waiting lists, people on trolleys as much etc .

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I live there so it's a moot point for me.

You are lucky so, you get a better service for less cost. I bet you do not feel you have to have private expensive health insurance, like 50% of the population here has ( double taxation)...or maybe you do?

ancapailldorcha

maryishere wrote: »

and their population is over 14 times more, and they do not have such long waiting lists, people on trolleys as much etc .

They're still paying more overall.

maryishere wrote: »

You are lucky so, you get a better service for less cost. I bet you do not feel you have to have private expensive health insurance, like 50% of the population here has ( double taxation)...or maybe you do?

This isn't double taxation. People have a choice whether or not to purchase insurance. There is no such choice for the NHS or the HSE.

maryishere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They're still paying more overall.

only ten times more, for a population over 14 times more. This means they are paying less per head.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't double taxation. People have a choice whether or not to purchase insurance.

Yes people have a choice - but the standard HSE health system here is so relatively bad that half the population scrimp and save to pay expensive private health insurance ( vhi etc) as they feel the HSE system is inadequate...even though its costing the taxpayer here a fortune, much more than the NHS costs the taxpayer there per head of population.

ancapailldorcha

maryishere wrote: »

only ten times more, for a population over 14 times more. This means they are paying less per head.

This is irrelevant. People here insist on exhorting the NHS as some sort of panacea despite the fact that it's not getting the funding it needs and is facing very real difficulties as a result. Maybe it is a better system than the HSE, maybe it isn't. It definitely is not worth relocating for that's for sure.

maryishere wrote: »

Yes people have a choice - but the standard HSE health system here is so relatively bad that half the population scrimp and save to pay expensive private health insurance ( vhi etc) as they feel the HSE system is inadequate...even though its costing the taxpayer here a fortune, much more than the NHS costs the taxpayer there per head of population.

A good thing, no? Surely so many people with VHI and the like means less burden on the state's coffers. Private insurance here isn't really viable due to the fact that insurers must compete against the NHS.

maryishere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is irrelevant.

It might be irrelevant to highly paid people who do well out of the Irish health system, but to the ordinary Irish taxpayer, the consumer, the fact we pay much more for a worse service is very relevant.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A good thing, no? Surely so many people with VHI and the like means less burden on the state's coffers.

But half the people here are paying twice for a health service - its like double taxation.

recipio

The very fact that 50% of the squeezed middle class opt to pay health insurance is absolute proof that we have no faith in the public health service. Why is this ? I contend that we have an innate fear of suffering or even dying while on some waiting list. There is a core level of indifference in the Dept of Health about this - something you will not find in the UK where they see health care as a National entitlement for everyone.

Putin

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Would you be willing to be part of the UK to get better healthcare?

I live in the UK and believe me, you don't want to even try using GP services over here.

gallag

Putin wrote: »

I live in the UK and believe me, you don't want to even try using GP services over here.

I live in the UK and @the current time of 6:50am my options to see a GP are to wait until 9:00am for the walk in service (9:00am - 10:00am) daily or if I can't wait that long I can phone bel-doc and get them to come to my house or arrange an appointment with the on call doc at my local a&e.

oscarBravo

Putin wrote: »

I live in the UK and believe me, you don't want to even try using GP services over here.

I went to the UK a few years ago, and only realised mid-flight that I'd forgotten my medication. I saw a GP in my brother's practice first thing the next morning, after a ten-minute wait. Five minutes (and no fee) later I was walking to the nearest pharmacy with a prescription, for which I paid something like a five-pound fee for medication that I normally spend €30-40 on here.

Every healthcare system has good and bad experiences.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

The various reports have not said it is "amazing", just that its is better than the HSE, they do not have waiting lists as long as ours, keep people on trolleys as much, medicine does not cost as much there etc.

The NHS also has fewer frontline staff per head of population than the HSE, fewer MRI units, fewer CT units…

maryishere wrote: »

Oh, and the reports showed in black 'n white it costs the UK taxpayer a bit less per head of population than the HSE costs ours. Not surprising considering the waste and inefficiency in our system.

Not surprising considering the UK is many times larger than Ireland.

maryishere wrote: »

But at least you are doing well out of it, so good for you.;)

I don’t work for the HSE? I don’t even live in Ireland.

maryishere wrote: »

But half the people here are paying twice for a health service - its like double taxation.

No, it isn’t, because there’s no way €13 odd billion is being spent on private health insurance in Ireland.

Plenty of people in the UK have private health insurance too – the market’s worth about £25 billion per year.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

I live in the UK and @the current time of 6:50am my options to see a GP are to wait until 9:00am for the walk in service (9:00am - 10:00am) daily or if I can't wait that long I can phone bel-doc and get them to come to my house or arrange an appointment with the on call doc at my local a&e.

None of the above constitute a regular GP service.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

Plenty of people in the UK have private health insurance too

but not the 50% figure like in Ireland. That, as someone else says, is proof that we have no faith in the public health service.

recipio wrote: »

I contend that we have an innate fear of suffering or even dying while on some waiting list. There is a core level of indifference in the Dept of Health about this - something you will not find in the UK where they see health care as a National entitlement for everyone.

correct.

maryishere

oscarBravo wrote: »

I went to the UK a few years ago, and only realised mid-flight that I'd forgotten my medication. I saw a GP in my brother's practice first thing the next morning, after a ten-minute wait. Five minutes (and no fee) later I was walking to the nearest pharmacy with a prescription, for which I paid something like a five-pound fee for medication that I normally spend €30-40 on here.

Lucky you. I doubt a visitor from the UK could visit a GP here, after only waiting 10 minutes, and come out with the prescription 5 minutes later - all for free.

Imagine their shock then paying 30 to 40 euro for something they could buy in their own pharmacy for 5 pounds>

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

but not the 50% figure like in Ireland. That, as someone else says, is proof that we have no faith in the public health service.

It's proof of nothing other than the fact that a lot of people have private health insurance. I had private health insurance when I was in Ireland, but it was paid for by my employer - had nothing to do with my faith in anything.

I can't help but notice you ignore points when it suits you do to so and continue on with the same old mantra of "NHS good, HSE bad".

munchkin_utd

maryishere wrote: »

Lucky you. I doubt a visitor from the UK could visit a GP here, after only waiting 10 minutes, and come out with the prescription 5 minutes later - all for free.

Imagine their shock then paying 30 to 40 euro for something they could buy in their own pharmacy for 5 pounds>

a visitor from the UK to Ireland would have an EHIC card so get a free GP visit and a prescription for whatever few cents it costs for the unemployed or whatever non tax paying folks in Ireland are deemed special enough to get enhanced medical care over the folks who actually pay tax to fund the service.

recipio

maryishere wrote: »

Lucky you. I doubt a visitor from the UK could visit a GP here, after only waiting 10 minutes, and come out with the prescription 5 minutes later - all for free.

Imagine their shock then paying 30 to 40 euro for something they could buy in their own pharmacy for 5 pounds>

Completely wrong I'm afraid. UK visitors are entitled to free GP care here for three months -deemed to be the cut off point of a tourist visit. They get a GMS prescription and ( I think ) pay the 2.50 per item charge.

oscarBravo

maryishere wrote: »

Lucky you. I doubt a visitor from the UK could visit a GP here, after only waiting 10 minutes, and come out with the prescription 5 minutes later - all for free.

Imagine their shock then paying 30 to 40 euro for something they could buy in their own pharmacy for 5 pounds>

As others have pointed out, I'm afraid you're wrong.

A friend of ours was visiting from the UK a few years ago, with her children. One of the children started to suffer from his asthma, and hadn't brought his inhaler. We brought them to my pharmacist, who - after a brief consultation - gave him an inhaler at no charge. If he'd had to visit a GP, that would have been free too.

Back to my point: every healthcare system has good and bad aspects.

recipio

oscarBravo wrote: »

As others have pointed out, I'm afraid you're wrong.

A friend of ours was visiting from the UK a few years ago, with her children. One of the children started to suffer from his asthma, and hadn't brought his inhaler. We brought them to my pharmacist, who - after a brief consultation - gave him an inhaler at no charge. If he'd had to visit a GP, that would have been free too.

Back to my point: every healthcare system has good and bad aspects.

The pharmacist will be reimbursed by the GMS - as would a consultation with a GP. Paperwork is involved.