NHS cheated by drugs companies and pharmacists

[Guest]

The Telegraph has undertaken an undercover investigation that has revealed how some pharmaceutical companies and some pharmacists have conspired to cheat the NHS out of potentially millions of pounds.

" Pharmaceutical firms appear to have rigged the market in so-called "specials" – prescription drugs that are largely not covered by national NHS price regulations.

The prices of more than 20,000 drugs could have been artificially inflated, with backhanders paid to chemists who agreed to sell them.

Representatives of some companies agreed to invoice chemists for drugs at up to double their actual cost. Chemists would then send inflated invoices to the NHS, allowing them to pocket the difference.

Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, has ordered an investigation into the allegations, which he described as "deeply concerning". "

Youre dead right there, Jeremy.

Here's the story, with details of how the scam works ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10133557/Pharmaceutical-scandal-The-NHS-the-drug-firms-and-the-price-racket.html

Aside from the scam, I'm also very cheesed off that the public has been encouraged to go to pharmacists for routine advice on sore throats, weight loss, blood pressure & diabetes testing to relieve some pressure on GPs. If the pharmacists are also screwing the NHS as described by the Telegraph then I believe the referral policy needs a re-think.

If this investigation turns out to be as important as the findings suggest, then it's another coup for investigative journalism, the sort of journalism that we need.

Which reminds me - what's happening post-Leveson recommendations?

[Serial_Apologist]

The Telegraph has undertaken an undercover investigation that has revealed how some pharmaceutical companies and some pharmacists have conspired to cheat the NHS out of potentially millions of pounds.

" Pharmaceutical firms appear to have rigged the market in so-called "specials" – prescription drugs that are largely not covered by national NHS price regulations.

The prices of more than 20,000 drugs could have been artificially inflated, with backhanders paid to chemists who agreed to sell them.

Representatives of some companies agreed to invoice chemists for drugs at up to double their actual cost. Chemists would then send inflated invoices to the NHS, allowing them to pocket the difference.

Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, has ordered an investigation into the allegations, which he described as "deeply concerning". "

Youre dead right there, Jeremy.

Here's the story, with details of how the scam works ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10133557/Pharmaceutical-scandal-The-NHS-the-drug-firms-and-the-price-racket.html

Aside from the scam, I'm also very cheesed off that the public has been encouraged to go to pharmacists for routine advice on sore throats, weight loss, blood pressure & diabetes testing to relieve some pressure on GPs. If the pharmacists are also screwing the NHS as described by the Telegraph then I believe the referral policy needs a re-think.

If this investigation turns out to be as important as the findings suggest, then it's another coup for investigative journalism, the sort of journalism that we need.

Which reminds me - what's happening post-Leveson recommendations?

Well the above story might suggest a promising start, though I'm not over-sanguine...

The scam it reveals is nothing new, really - just a transfer from GPs being bought off to chemists being ditto. But, am I detecting a hint of seriousness overcoming Jeremy Hunt at last? This, and the scandal over the enquiry cover-up?

[Dave2002]

Aside from the scam, I'm also very cheesed off that the public has been encouraged to go to pharmacists for routine advice on sore throats, weight loss, blood pressure & diabetes testing to relieve some pressure on GPs. If the pharmacists are also screwing the NHS as described by the Telegraph then I believe the referral policy needs a re-think.

Some pharmacists are good. Missus was once helped enormously by a pharmacist who spotted a condition (shingles I think) before it took hold. He sent her immediately to the GP for a confirmation and prescription of anti-virals which very likely reduced potential problems to a minimum. A good collaboration between pharmacists and GPs can be helpful, but neither is a substitute for the other.

[salymap]

I've had problems with this recently. Pharmacist's advice sometimes going directly against nurse and doctor.

I've dispensed with the extra advice and prefer to rely on the Surgery. I hope I've done the right thing.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I've dispensed with the extra advice and prefer to rely on the Surgery. I hope I've done the right thing.

I think you have, sals; as Dave says, most Pharmacists are very good (and trained at University level), but he's right that they should always refer you to your GP and defer to your GP's decision about what your best course of treatment should be.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep cod liver oil features in the Graf today priced at boodles of moolah fro the NHS ....

[zoomy]

There is lots of corruption at the point where public service meets private provider and it is about to get a lot worse with all these private providers entering into the NHS.

[salymap]

Re my message #4 here, I was a little surprised and annoyed to see on another change of BP tablets, printed beside my name -"She doesn't want advice on her new tablets".

Was someone miffed at being told that being pulled three ways with advice was too much?

[zoomy]

Re my message #4 here, I was a little surprised and annoyed to see on another change of BP tablets, printed beside my name -"She doesn't want advice on her new tablets".

Was someone miffed at being told that being pulled three ways with advice was too much?

My advice would be, take all the advice you can get and I certainly would not trust a GP, nurse or pharmacist to give any particularly good advice (there are exceptions of course) - GPs are small businesses who become increasingly de-skilled and cynical as soon as they start in their practice, nurses generally do not know much about drugs in my experience and pharmacists are similar in outlook to the GPs. The only group that I would listen to are NHS hospital based consultants.

[ahinton]

My advice would be, take all the advice you can get and I certainly would not trust a GP, nurse or pharmacist to give any particularly good advice (there are exceptions of course) - GPs are small businesses who become increasingly de-skilled and cynical as soon as they start in their practice, nurses generally do not know much about drugs in my experience and pharmacists are similar in outlook to the GPs. The only group that I would listen to are NHS hospital based consultants.

Whilst I appreciate your reservations here and no doubt your reasons for them, why would you necessarily trust anyone here, given that everyone either has or can have a vested interest, just as in anything else in life?

[scottycelt]

Whilst I appreciate your reservations here and no doubt your reasons for them, why would you necessarily trust anyone here, given that everyone either has or can have a vested interest, just as in anything else in life?

That is perfectly true, ahinton.

Every working person in both the private and public sectors is a salesman/woman (selling their goods, services or skills for money), whether they realise it or not.

So in a real sense even salaried workers who claim that they are anti-capitalist are, in practice, money-grabbing capitalists.

[ahinton]

That is perfectly true, ahinton.

Every working person in both the private and public sectors is a salesman/woman (selling their goods, services or skills for money), whether they realise it or not.

So in a real sense even salaried workers who claim that they are anti-capitalist are, in practice, money-grabbing capitalists.

I wouldn't describe them as such but, as you write, anyone who sells goods or services in return for money - and the latter includes employment - is certainly involved in the capitalist system, although that does not necessarily make them trustworthy or indeed untrustworthy.

[umslopogaas]

#11 "Every working person in both the private or public sectors is a salesman/woman (selling their goods/services/skills for money) whether they realise it or not."

I think that is stretching the meaning of "salesman/woman" so far that it becomes meaningless. My understanding of "salesman" is someone who earns a flexible income on the strength of their ability to shift stock. The more they sell, the more money they make. They may have a (probably very small) base salary, but their main income depends on their ability to gain commission on the stock they sell.

By contrast, a salaried professional takes a job at a specified salary which in my experience is not negotiable. He/she then gets on with the job. The income is predetermined and not variable. If you are totally incompetent you get fired, if you are very good you get promoted, but within those extremes (which is where most people fall) there is no financial flexibility. To describe such people as "salesmen" is to devalue the word to a level where it becomes meaningless.

Another thought. A true "salesman" is someone who can persuade you to buy his goods. If he is really good, and unscrupulous as well, those goods can both be stuff you dont need, and sub-standard to boot. The salesman is judged good or not by the quantity of stuff he has managed to shift. Whereas a professional scientist -yes it sounds insufferably self-important, but I was a scientist and people paid me money to do it - accepts a salary to do his job. He does not then shift stock that someone else has made, he generates stuff in the form of results, which if of sufficient quality are accepted into the literature. Such a person doesnt empty warehouses of stock, he fills warehouses with knowledge. I cant see such a person as a "salesman".

Which is not to say that salesmen and scientists arent both working in the capitalist system: they are. Scientists also work in socialist systems, but I'm not sure about how salesmen fit in to such systems, I think that's a subject for another thread.

[zoomy]

Whilst I appreciate your reservations here and no doubt your reasons for them, why would you necessarily trust anyone here, given that everyone either has or can have a vested interest, just as in anything else in life?

It is really a question of skills. After their training, GPs normally work in small practices where they become progressively de-skilled through having little further clinical contact and training during their career. Hospital consultants on the other hand, gain more experience and expertise because they perform operations everyday and, as they work in larger hospitals they have more colleagues to help with advice and second opinions etc.

[zoomy]

Here is one example of the differences in skill levels between GPs and hospital consultants - cancer survival rates for adults in the UK are lower than in the rest of Europe but cancer survival rates for children in the UK are higher. The key to survival is early diagnosis so why are sysmptoms being missed in adults but picked up in children in the UK ?

The answer is - GPs are generally reluctant to examine children because they are afraid of legal issues, sex laws etc so if a child comes to the surgery with a problem they are more likely to send them off to the hospital to see a consultant, where the symptoms are picked up.

With adults however, doctors are less concerned about legal issues and therefore do not send those patients to see a consultant as readily and try instead to diagnose the problem themselves which generally involves prescribing tablets for sciatica or treating a persistent cough with bronchial medicines etc. and thereby losing any opportunity for early diagnosis and thereby lessening the patient's chances of survival.