Private prescribing sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.
24 likes 7mo
Regional · UK & Ireland · continued
Coming back to: Private prescribing in the UK: what is actually involved posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
n.osei, post #20: Post #16 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one. Private prescribing was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread. Go to post
An update on my earlier Private prescribing post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.
Understood. Thank you for being specific about the limits of it.
7 likes 7mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
This follows post #32 rather than contradicting it.
What I would tell a new member reading about Private prescribing for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
v.szabo, post #19: Adding the measurement that post #18 says would settle it. Cross-border arrangements: some people source from other EU countries. Rules on import for personal use are changing post-Brexit. Current status requires checking with UKVI. I would want a second opinion before relying on that. Go to post
Private prescribing would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Ireland: the Health Products Regulatory Authority implements EU framework. Prescription-only. Reimbursement for weight management has been more restrictive than for diabetes. Private prescription at full cost is usual for weight management.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
3 likes 7mo
Availability through a private route and availability through the public system are separate questions and both change independently.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
0 likes 7mo
Post #38 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Waiting times are the most variable and least generalisable thing reported here, and they are worth posting anyway with a region and a date.
1 like 7mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #39 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
The useful distinction on Private prescribing is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
e.kjeldsen, post #37: Ireland: the Health Products Regulatory Authority implements EU framework. Prescription-only. Reimbursement for weight management has been more restrictive than for diabetes. Private prescription at full cost is usual for weight management. Genuinely open to being wrong about this one. Go to post
Cross-border movement between the two jurisdictions is not the same as domestic movement within either, and the rules are published rather than inferred.
a.silva, post #28: MHRA is the regulator. Licensed incretin analogues are prescription-only medicines. NHS and private prescribing routes exist with materially different access criteria and costs. Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring. Go to post
Where the compound is supplied with a device, the device and the compound have separate availability positions and the device is more often the constraint.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.
0 likes 7mo
Source for the Private prescribing figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
27 likes 7mo
MJayawardena, post #45: Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that. Go to post
Occupational health screening: some UK occupations require medical checks. Disclosure of weight-loss medication might be relevant to employment screening; understand your obligations.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Speaking only to Private prescribing as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
2 likes 7mo
Worth separating two things that post #47 runs together.
I keep a log for Private prescribing specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
0 likes 7mo
e.kimani, post #15: Post #14 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Correcting an out-of-date claim in this subcategory with a source and a date is more valuable than a new topic on the same question. It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination. Go to post
Ireland: the Health Products Regulatory Authority implements EU framework. Prescription-only. Reimbursement for weight management has been more restrictive than for diabetes. Private prescription at full cost is usual for weight management.
That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.
o.abrahamsen, post #35: This follows post #32 rather than contradicting it. What I would tell a new member reading about Private prescribing for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer. Go to post
Everything in post #48 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Adding a reference point for Private prescribing. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
MHRA is the regulator. Licensed incretin analogues are prescription-only medicines. NHS and private prescribing routes exist with materially different access criteria and costs.
2 likes 7mo
Private prescribing is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
9 likes 7mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
The arithmetic in post #54 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Availability through a private route and availability through the public system are separate questions and both change independently.
I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.
s.grahame, post #43: Cross-border movement between the two jurisdictions is not the same as domestic movement within either, and the rules are published rather than inferred. Go to post
Answering the question post #52 raises rather than the one it answers.
Private prescribing is legal and widespread, including through remote consultation. Pharmacies must satisfy themselves that a prescription is clinically appropriate. Expect to be asked for measurements and history.
vial_table, post #56: Answering the question post #52 raises rather than the one it answers. Private prescribing is legal and widespread, including through remote consultation. Pharmacies must satisfy themselves that a prescription is clinically appropriate. Expect to be asked for measurements and history. Go to post
Summarising the Private prescribing thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Adding the measurement that post #57 says would settle it.
Date the claim and say whether it is the United Kingdom or Ireland. They are different regulatory jurisdictions and the answer is frequently different.
0 likes 6mo