Prescription charge is tip of the iceberg
A BID to make some of the poorest in society pay for their prescription charges is another sign of sections of the States rushing to generate cash without knowing the consequences. It also part of a wider theme of extra charges for services that in isolation look perfectly attractive to politicians wanting to spend more again – or take the easy option rather than make further savings – but when taken as a whole leave some people struggling to make ends meet.
Currently all people over 65 and anyone in receipt of supplementary benefit or severe disability benefit are exempt from paying for prescriptions – the usual charge of which is set to increase by an arbitrary 20p to £3.70 an item if members agree.
Last year more than 60% of prescriptions were issued to people exempt from the charge.
Social Security has asked for more time to investigate the consequences of ending free prescriptions and to develop mitigation measures.
It and Treasury, though, started the ball rolling having provisionally backed the move when they presented the tax, pensions and benefits report earlier this year.
Now an amendment led by former Health and Social Services minister Hunter Adam wants them to act, without knowing those consequences, to generate another £960,000 a year for the health insurance fund which pays for things such as the MSG contract.
It adds some caveats that no one paying the £1 charge would have to pay more than £10 a month.
A sceptical public will be right to ask whether members have kept their side of the bargain.
Have they delivered an efficient, value-for-money public sector which is working in the right areas and on the right services before introducing charges that may have a disproportional effect on some and also require complicated mitigation measures?
This is the tip of the iceberg of areas in which this States and the next will be considering to raise money – indeed even under the department's stalled plan the benefit would be phased out altogether by 2020.
The question is – do they really understand the impact that would have on people's lives?
