50cents per item for medical card users.

Lemondrop kid

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

maryjane007

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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...

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

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.

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?

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...

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.

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?

Lemondrop kid

hmmm wrote: »

A state of wha?

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Careful there Ted

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.

Lemondrop kid

Joey the lips wrote: »

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.

Well i do see this being a temp measure, 2-5 years, without much rise.
The potential for fallout is too severe, esp amongst the elderly

Joey the lips

Lemondrop kid wrote: »

Well i do see this being a temp measure, 2-5 years, without much rise.
The potential for fallout is too severe, esp amongst the elderly

Fianna failure man????? Would you be willing to bet on that>

**** this for a non issue.

Spare a thought for the poor unfortunates who don't qualify for the medical card and when they get sick they can't afford to go to the doctor in the first place to even get the prescription, let alone pay for the prescription once they get it.

If you can't afford 50 cent, then that's your fault. Welfare is WAY too generous as it is. Start budgeting better.

Joey the lips

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

**** this for a non issue.

Spare a thought for the poor unfortunates who don't qualify for the medical card and when they get sick they can't afford to go to the doctor in the first place to even get the prescription, let alone pay for the prescription once they get it.

If you can't afford 50 cent, then that's your fault. Welfare is WAY too generous as it is. Start budgeting better.

:rolleyes:

Lemondrop kid

Joey the lips wrote: »

Fianna failure man????? Would you be willing to bet on that>

Em perhaps you should re-read my posts, esp in the Budget 2010 threads Joey.

As for the willing to bet, i certainly hope it doesn't happen.
The demogaphic which dominate these posts - and they have every right - don't seem to have a clear view of the nature of the poverty trap. Certainly that trap now includes the lower paid and those with large mortages, but the dismissive anger towards those in the same or worse boat (SW recipients) is only serving the agenda of the very rich.
Well there's my politics in as much as it exists.
Pol party wise i'll be voting for the 'monster raving lunatic party' branch if every they get over here.;)

KC JONES

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that's probably the masterplan.

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

will the pharmacist get any of it or will they just be collecting tax for the govt

KC JONES

Of course someone who had say 5 meds could ask the pharmacist to waive/absorb it or else walk. When you consider a lot of folk go regularly to the same pharmacy they would have a lot of power. That is what i would do if i were a 5 med person. I certainly would not give the same pharmacist the fee each time.

No loyalty but to wallet:D

best money saving idea ever - so much wastage going on between unnecessary doctor's prescribing fees and people unnecessarily consuming medicine. totally agree with this. as many have said, given (in most cases) that it's a repeat prescription and therefore flagged well in advance- if it's really required the money will not be an issue.

97i9y3941

defo i think this thing will start going up,maybe putting it at akward prices then like €2.43 or something so you would be made to handover €2.50 or something,why cant they do an holland job and bring in a pay as you go med plan?...

johnnyskeleton

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?

Rather than pay in cash, there should be a link between their medical card and their social welfare payments. Everytime the medical card is scanned it deducts 50 from their next social welfare payment.

They are very small amounts, and to be honest health should be priority number 1 for people. So if they choose to spend the 50 on something else that is either gross financial mismanagement on their part or else it is a brazen effort to refuse to pay it on the basis that the government won't let them die.

If someone gets just under €200 a week plus free bus, medical visits and possibly rent allowance and instead of paying 50c to look after their own health they spend it on something else, I don't think they deserve any extra help. They have to learn personal financial responsibility and while I'd like them to learn this without the risk of dire consequences, they're going to have to grow up some time.

Does that make me a bad person?

97i9y3941

like i said,maybe use a pay as you go med plan like holland?,some people who are on the med cards are in great health and rarely use them at all!..

johnnyskeleton

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?

The government is not liable for nonfeasance of a public duty unless there is specific negligence.

So the government will be liable for actively doing something which violates your rights, but will not be liable for omitting to do something unless they were specifically negligent in your case.

iPink

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So if they choose to spend the 50 on something else that is either gross financial mismanagement on their part or else it is a brazen effort to refuse to pay it on the basis that the government won't let them die.

If someone gets just under €200 a week plus free bus, medical visits and possibly rent allowance and instead of paying 50c to look after their own health they spend it on something else, I don't think they deserve any extra help. They have to learn personal financial responsibility and while I'd like them to learn this without the risk of dire consequences, they're going to have to grow up some time.

Does that make me a bad person?

Interesting point... I wonder if food for their children would be considered as 'something else' in your opinion?

Call me financially irresponsible if you will but there have been times I have had to literally count cents out to buy a loaf of bread, just cos €2.50 or indeed 50c doesn't seem like a lot to you, it doesn't mean it isn't to other people, poverty is becoming a very real thing in Ireland at the moment.

Does it make you a bad person? probably not, condesending & judgemental? yes, for sure

iPink

iPink wrote: »

Interesting point... I wonder if food for their children would be considered as 'something else' in your opinion?

Call me financially irresponsible if you will but there have been times I have had to literally count cents out to buy a loaf of bread, just cos €2.50 or indeed 50c doesn't seem like a lot to you, it doesn't mean it isn't to other people, poverty is becoming a very real thing in Ireland at the moment.

Does it make you a bad person? probably not, condesending & judgemental? yes, for sure

200 euro a week on food? Is that a joke? That would feed 10 people..

iPink

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

200 euro a week on food? Is that a joke? That would feed 10 people..

I presume you are being sarcastic because I'm quite sure that no-body in their sane mind would expect to be taken seriously with a comment like that.

Oh yes, 200euro goes a REALLY long way when you have kids- lets see; food, drink, clothes, shoes, rent, electricity, heating, schooling, nappies, bus fare, soap, toothpaste etc etc etc the list is endless... but then I'll probably be shot down & told that the items on this list are luxuries & not 'essentials'...

By the way, if you think 200e a week would feed 10 people then fair play to you!!

tudlytops

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?

Wouldn't the goverment save more money if medical card holders didn't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for non prescription items.

Say i want Calpol for my child, so instead of being able to go to my chemist who would have my medical card on record and just get the Calpol = Goverment pays for Calpol, i have to go to my doctor and get a prescription for it = goverment pays doctor and Calpol.

They would save big on doctors fees, but then that would upset the doctors can't have that

iPink

iPink wrote: »

I presume you are being sarcastic because I'm quite sure that no-body in their sane mind would expect to be taken seriously with a comment like that.

Oh yes, 200euro goes a REALLY long way when you have kids- lets see; food, drink, clothes, shoes, rent, electricity, heating, schooling, nappies, bus fare, soap, toothpaste etc etc etc the list is endless... but then I'll probably be shot down & told that the items on this list are luxuries & not 'essentials'...

By the way, if you think 200e a week would feed 10 people then fair play to you!!

How often do you have to buy soap or toothpaste...once a month? You get a free bus card. When I was a kid my clothes (items that needed replacing) were bought in penneys maybe once or twice a year - and this was only 20 years ago. The more people you're buying food for the cheaper each subsequent person becomes. Unless of course you're buying each one coke/fanta/crisps/snacks etc that are totally not essential in the slightest. I know I never had any of these as a kid in the 80's except for special occassions.

Plus you're getting child benefit for these kids.


edit: anyway, enough of the off-topicness.

tudlytops

Yes can we stick to the topic it self, what do you think of my idea?

I'm not totality wrong am I?

iPink

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

How often do you have to buy soap or toothpaste...once a month? You get a free bus card. When I was a kid my clothes (items that needed replacing) were bought in penneys maybe once or twice a year - and this was only 20 years ago. The more people you're buying food for the cheaper each subsequent person becomes. Unless of course you're buying each one coke/fanta/crisps/snacks etc that are totally not essential in the slightest. I know I never had any of these as a kid in the 80's except for special occassions.

Plus you're getting child benefit for these kids.


edit: anyway, enough of the off-topicness.

I love the way people pick on the easiest parts... bypass the nappies, cost of schooling, rent, heating etc & go straight for the soap & toothpaste lol

Please don't presume to judge me by throwing in comments about crisps/snacks etc I wish that was what I fed my kids on... believe me it costs a hell of a lot more to try to feed them properly on fruit, veg, decent meat, wholemeal foods etc

If you are only 20 years old (which you say you are) I wouldn't even expect you to understand the pressure, worry & stress that goes with being a parent & literally not knowing where the next meal is going to come from... let alone try your best to provide them with SOME semblance of a 'normal' life like their friends may have...

By the way... what bus card??????

iPink

back to the topic at hand... 50c per item for med. card holders....

I think it's a good idea to have to pay a nominal amount for prescriptions but I think a 'per item' cost may be a bit of a problem for some people

I see my Father for example, he has a heart condition and high blood pressure with it amongst other things... he could have anything from 15 to 20 items on any given prescription, it adds up to quite a lot

Also people who are on long-term illness... could be a lot for them to bear also...?