I'm Short Of Money But I'd Die Without Medicine

[okarol]

I'm Short Of Money But I'd Die Without Medicine

Mar 30 2008

Rebecca's Story Slashed Prescription Charges Are Set To Transform The Lives Of Thousands Of Cash-Strapped Sick Scots

REBECCA CHAMBERLAIN, 34, needs a daily concoction of pills to keep her alive following a kidney transplant 11 years ago.

She said: "Not taking it is not an option - it is the difference between life and death - but it is expensive."

At the moment she buys a PPC three times a year - each one costs £35.85 - costing £107.55 annually.

With the new reduction in charges, this will drop to £17 per PPC - £51 annually - a saving of £56.55.

She said: "The new charges will make a really big difference to me."

Rebecca, of Edinburgh, was born with one kidney that worked but it began to fail when she was 19.

Her brother Peter, who is seven years older, donated a kidney. The operation was a success but Rebecca still needs daily medication to ensure her new kidney keeps working.

She said: "The main tablet is an immunosuppressant which stops my body rejecting the new organ.

"This leaves me prone to coughs and colds, which can lead to another prescription. I also need a steroid tablet and a vitamin supplement."

Just after her transplant, Rebecca needed twice as many tablets.

The Edinburgh University fundraiser said: "I had to follow a chart to keep track of them. And I've always had to pay for everything.

"It has left me short of money. I've never had to stop and think, 'will I take these drugs?' but I can see how it could happen. I've heard stories of people who have to choose which part of their medication to take."

For 10 years Rebecca was unaware that a Prescription Pre-payment Certificate (PPC) would have saved her money.

She added: "It makes a huge difference but I can only afford a four-month certificate at a time."

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/lifestyle/lifestyle-catchall/2008/03/30/i-m-short-of-money-but-i-d-die-without-medicine-78057-20367037/

[stauffenberg]

Those on the English National Health system have no idea how lucky they are compared to Americans, who three years after a transplant have to pay the full cost of their anti-rejection medications.  This is even worse than in other countries which require patients to pay for their immunosuppression, since the US Government refuses to bargain with drug companies to force them to keep their prices down, as other countries do.  But if the top priority of the government is to help the rich get richer, then keeping taxes low by making people pay for their vital medications without help from the government, and keeping drug prices high to benefit the wealthy people who own Big Pharma, outweigh helping the sick.

[rose1999]

I agree that our NHS means we don't have to pay the full cost of drugs, but we are also denied drugs (particularly cancer ones) because of cost, it also means that dialysis clinics (and other health provision) in rural areas are few and far between - our nearest is 30 miles away and that's no fun when you're 80 years old.  I believe both Government's could learn from one another regarding health care.  And knowing what I do of both of them they'd probably manage to come out with the worst from both!!

[glitter]

we are also denied drugs (particularly cancer ones) because of cost

what if you will die without the treatment?

[rose1999]

we are also denied drugs (particularly cancer ones) because of cost

what if you will die without the treatment?

You either pay privately (if you can afford it - but in some cases that can mean you have to pay for all of your treatment) or you die.  There is also what is known here as 'the postcode lottery' where people living in some areas (post codes) can get drugs on the NHS and other areas can't.  It's madness, you'd imagine if a drug treats a condition (or cures it) then it would be available to everyone.  Not here!.

[KT0930]

we are also denied drugs (particularly cancer ones) because of cost

what if you will die without the treatment?

You either pay privately (if you can afford it - but in some cases that can mean you have to pay for all of your treatment) or you die.  There is also what is known here as 'the postcode lottery' where people living in some areas (post codes) can get drugs on the NHS and other areas can't.  It's madness, you'd imagine if a drug treats a condition (or cures it) then it would be available to everyone.  Not here!.

At least we have programs through some pharmaceutical companies that will get you your drugs free or reduced price if you prove a need. Yes, I know it's a lot of paperwork, but it's sounds better than, "Well, if you live in this certain area you can get it; if not, tough."

[stauffenberg]

The only drugs that are excluded from the British NHS are those that are still regarded as experimental or are simply not cost effective.  If a single dose of a medication costs $100,000 and it gives the patient a 1% chance of living another month, is it worth paying for that small chance of limited success, especially when the cost reduces the healthcare budget available to take care of other patients?

The more pressing problem in Britain is not how the healthcare budge is divided up, but how big it is.  Ever since the extreme turn of British politics to the right with the transformation of Labour into a centrist or right-wing party, the chief goal of government has been to keep taxes low on the wealthy and powerful, no matter how many sick people have to die because of budget cuts to the NHS.  England spends only 7% of its GNP on healthcare, while the US spends 16% of its GNP on healthcare, so you can imagine the huge difference this makes in outcomes.

[rose1999]

The only drugs that are excluded from the British NHS are those that are still regarded as experimental or are simply not cost effective.  If a single dose of a medication costs $100,000 and it gives the patient a 1% chance of living another month, is it worth paying for that small chance of limited success, especially when the cost reduces the healthcare budget available to take care of other patients?

This is true regarding experimental drugs, but when a drug is accepted by NICE it is still up to the individual PCT to agree that it will be available to patients, we had it with Herceptin and now we have it with a Kidney Cancer drug (can't remember the name just at the moment but it was on TV last night). It means that in some parts of the country people get the drug on the NHS and in others they either don't get it or have to pay privately.  There have been cases reported where someone has offered to pay and then been told that in that case all of their treatment will have to be paid for.

The more pressing problem in Britain is not how the healthcare budge is divided up, but how big it is. Ever since the extreme turn of British politics to the right with the transformation of Labour into a centrist or right-wing party, the chief goal of government has been to keep taxes low on the wealthy and powerful, no matter how many sick people have to die because of budget cuts to the NHS. England spends only 7% of its GNP on healthcare, while the US spends 16% of its GNP on healthcare, so you can imagine the huge difference this makes in outcomes.

  Spot on!