NHS satisfaction...

[vetran]

Yes I did - I even linked to it. You just didn’t like the link.



I didn’t “change the reference price”, I had picked one supplier off the NHS price list, I then gave options for 3 other suppliers. I didn’t quote the wrong price.



Something that is “unlikely” and “probably” won’t vary? Good luck with that.




The “private price list” is actually the BNF (British National Formulary) provided by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). It contains the NHS prices. It’s not made up by me.
But “multiple papers” have told you that it doesn’t exist, and if it did, all the facts in it are wrong.

Go on, knock yourself out:
https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/paracetamol/

…Then take some paracetamol for your sore head.

ok thanks for the link. I had a look at caplets 500mg and the many were priced at 1.34p or 2.44p per unit as I suggested. There were a couple outliers one at .6p a unit (I would check it wasn't an entry area or had special conditions) there was also one at 3.29p per unit.

If there is a lower price do the NHS always buy at that lower price?

So the 2.44p per unit is about the same price you can buy by the 16 (my link to 39p) in Tesco (+ Asda) and a quarter more per unit than the 2p B&M sell it at. The 3.72 is 1.86 times the B&M price.

So it is clear on current pricing if the prevailing price is 2.44p per unit to the NHS 25% more expensive than it is to buy on the high street, if its 1.34 its about a third off we are hardly getting a massive discount.

These are all 100 quantities so less expensive packaging. Though it seems it is prescribed in smaller quantities

And for the Horses other end, from the Horses mouth.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/11/p...rontline-care/

• Can be purchased over the counter, and sometimes at a lower cost than that which would be incurred by the NHS – paracetamol is an average of four times as expensive when provided on prescription by the NHS, compared to when it is purchased in pharmacies or supermarkets. It can costs around £34 for 32 on prescription including dispensing and GP consultation fees.

Not just the papers I also linked to NHS articles which said it was about £2.50 , which you said included the cost of prescribing them - it doesn't or Ben Bradley lied to the house and the NHS site above is a bit confused.


https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...forceExpansion

We still deliver paracetamol on prescription, but it costs 30p at Boots. It costs £35 to go through all the different appointments and all the different systems to get paracetamol on prescription from the NHS, at the cost of tens of millions of pounds a year. Why do we do that? Why do we add that burden to our health system?

He makes the point that the overhead of prescribing them is massive.


did you need some burn cream?

[vetran]

I'm talking tulip and personally attacking posters because I can't understand the points

FTFY

[WTFH]

did you need some burn cream?

Nope, because you have changed your argument again.
The cost to the NHS of buying paracetamol is not 15x (DM claim) or 4x, or whatever you want to call it. You got that one completely wrong.
The cost of buying paracetamol in the NHS is at a similar level to the supermarkets. Something which you refuse to accept, because it doesn’t compute in your tiny brain.

Each time you are presented with facts you try to shift your argument.
My first response to you in this thread was to ask if you knew the difference between prescribing and buying. It’s clear you still don’t, in the same way that you would struggle to identify your elbow from your backside.

You don’t understand, and don’t want to understand, how NHS supply works, and frankly, I’m not sure I could explain it in simple enough terms that you would accept, even if you were open to it.

It’s rather sad that you’re deliberately and wilfully ignorant.

[vetran]

Nope, because you have changed your argument again.
The cost to the NHS of buying paracetamol is not 15x (DM claim) or 4x, or whatever you want to call it. You got that one completely wrong.
The cost of buying paracetamol in the NHS is at a similar level to the supermarkets. Something which you refuse to accept, because it doesn’t compute in your tiny brain.

Each time you are presented with facts you try to shift your argument.
My first response to you in this thread was to ask if you knew the difference between prescribing and buying. It’s clear you still don’t, in the same way that you would struggle to identify your elbow from your backside.

You don’t understand, and don’t want to understand, how NHS supply works, and frankly, I’m not sure I could explain it in simple enough terms that you would accept, even if you were open to it.

It’s rather sad that you’re deliberately and wilfully ignorant.

I haven't changed my argument. The Health secretary stated publicly that the NHS paid over the odds for over the counter medicine, you suggested that was a lie. I have shown you the street price is 2p a pill in a 16 pill package as a one off retail sale. According to the prices you supplied it is between 0.6 and 3.79p a pill packaged by the 100 when purchased by the NHS.

So we have established the cost of buying paracetamol by the NHS from the figures you supplied is nearly the same as buying retail in a supermarket and sometimes more. One would expect such a large organisation to get a discount especially when not in more expensive retail packaging.

I have given you links from the NHS, Hansard and a number of papers (including the wail quoting a number of sources for giggles) that state the cost is sometimes 4-5 times above retail cost.

The cost of prescribing has been set at £35 a time again direct from the NHS and echoed from Hansard.

So not only do the NHS apparently buy above retail they have a £35 arrangement fee.

I'm not willfully ignorant, you are not explaining it well enough and credible government sources suggest your strenuous and somewhat arrogant assertions are wrong. I keep checking your post name as it makes me think I am talking to Dhoogy-fashion not the WTFH we all know and respect.

do tell me what I am missing?

[Zigenare]

I keep checking your post name as it makes me think I am talking to Dhoogy-fashion not the WTFH we all know and respect.

Speak for yourself.

[d000hg]

FTFY

Nope. Firstly, I said you were saying (incredibly) stupid things but didn't make a personal attack on you. You should be able to tell the difference as an adult...Silly name-calling, really?

Secondly, no matter how much you try to overcomplicate this with an ever-expanding argument it doesn't change the fact that you've said something clearly false based on a basic misunderstanding from a biased news source who were seeking to deceive. It's not going to distract anyone no matter how much you bluff and bluster. I'm not sure at this point if you actually believe what you're saying (you do seem to swallow anything in the DM as truth), or you're hoping to extricate yourself from the mess you've made with a load of verbal chaff, or you're just arguing for the sake of it... but everyone on the outside just sees you digging an ever-larger hole.

I think you probably said it best when you talked about being "wilfully ignorant". This whole argument is absurd.

[vetran]

Nope. Firstly, I said you were saying (incredibly) stupid things but didn't make a personal attack on you. You should be able to tell the difference as an adult...Silly name-calling, really?

Secondly, no matter how much you try to overcomplicate this with an ever-expanding argument it doesn't change the fact that you've said something clearly false based on a basic misunderstanding from a biased news source who were seeking to deceive. It's not going to distract anyone no matter how much you bluff and bluster. I'm not sure at this point if you actually believe what you're saying (you do seem to swallow anything in the DM as truth), or you're hoping to extricate yourself from the mess you've made with a load of verbal chaff, or you're just arguing for the sake of it... but everyone on the outside just sees you digging an ever-larger hole.

I think you probably said it best when you talked about being "wilfully ignorant". This whole argument is absurd.

Incredibly stupid like 2p retail is cheaper than 3.29p wholesale and is not a great deal for the NHS?

The news sources were the NHS & Hansard among others how are they biased?

[WTFH]

Incredibly stupid like 2p retail is cheaper than 3.29p wholesale and is not a great deal for the NHS?

The news sources were the NHS & Hansard among others how are they biased?

Ah, the cheapest retailer is more expensive than the most expensive option on the tariff. Shock horror.

Your news source:

Paracetamol made up £73.7million of the spend, being prescribed over 16million times, at about £4.50 a pack — roughly 15 times the price of a pack of paracetamol at supermarket Tesco.

it doesn't say "the most expensive" or "sometimes as much as", but "at about"

You then say "at about £4.50" is the same as "about £2.50"

Not just the papers I also linked to NHS articles which said it was about £2.50.

So, you want to ignore the 60p per hundred, and any of the other options that are below the drug tariff, because they don't fit your argument, and to change the wording of the Fail and Taxpayers alliance to be something they didn't say.
It's what we've come to expect from you.

[vetran]

Ah, the cheapest retailer is more expensive than the most expensive option on the tariff. Shock horror.

Your news source:


it doesn't say "the most expensive" or "sometimes as much as", but "at about"

You then say "at about £4.50" is the same as "about £2.50"



So, you want to ignore the 60p per hundred, and any of the other options that are below the drug tariff, because they don't fit your argument, and to change the wording of the Fail and Taxpayers alliance to be something they didn't say.
It's what we've come to expect from you.

should we ask Hansard & the NHS recommendations to change as they don't agree with your beliefs?