[log in to unmask],Net wrote at 09:33 on 24/03/98
about "Re: Statins for everyone":
-----------------------------
>>1. Antimalarials are prescribable on FP10 for prophylaxis
>I didn't know that, I thought that there was a local initiative
somewhere
>in which the local health authority said that they would pay. Are you
quite
>certain that this is national policy (before I tell my GPs and
patients).
1. It is national policy (or what the previous health secretary _said_
was national policy) that they should not be prescribed.
2. A mechanism exists for blacklisting products, presumably one which
a
Health Sec might be called to demonstrate to a judicial review was
being used reasonably or properly.
3. That mechanism has not been used and anti-malarials are not
therefore black-listed.
4. anti-malarials may therefore be prescribed on FP10, however it
is clear that at least one recent gov has hoped they would not be.
Personally, I think it would be more sensible to impose a specific
tax, along the lines of the airport tax, on departing for a malarial
region, remove the prescription tax from anti-malarials, and balance
the books that way.
>>The correct tax point for tobacco is that point at which a fall in
>>_revenue_ from the taxation is demonstrated, or a little over that,
>>certainly no lower. Kill the smoky goose despite the golden eggs it
>>produces.
>
>
>That seems to be the view held by the treasury.
I think they need to double the tax to reach it.
--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|