Biased BBC and Citizens Advice
A characteristic bit of BBC headline grabbing mendacity today.
Call for free NHS prescriptions
Free prescriptions should be introduced in England as thousands of people are not collecting medicines because of cost, Citizens Advice has said. (BBC)
Take a look here at what Citizens Advice actually say. Sadly, nothing about missing apostrophes, but I digress. They do not suggest that free prescriptions for all should be introduced. They do say that the current system of exemptions is a mess, and they are right. They do say - and give some poignant examples – that the Gordonian Knot of tax benefits, tax credits and exemptions mean that some people on low incomes are not exempt from charges when they clearly should be.
“It is simply unacceptable that people are still failing to collect prescriptions because they can’t afford it. It is essential that there is now urgent action to finally eliminate prescription poverty in England." (Citizens Advice)
That does not mean free prescriptions for all.
+++++++++++
Emails flooding in saying that I have misrepresented the BBC; that nowhere do they show the headline "Call for free prescriptions" and nowhere do they misrepresent the Citizens Advice as pushing for the introduction of free prescriptions.
Well, not any more they don't. Within two hours of the NHS BLOG DOCTOR post, the original BBC article was redrafted and re-headlined. Now it tells the truth. Not such a headline grabber, but then the truth rarely is.
The last time the BBC did this, they left a copy of the original article in the Google caches and, amongst much blogging hilarity, this was reprinted along side the update by the excellent Newsniffer (see here). The BBC seems to have wised up a bit. I just checked the Google URL caches for the article and they are showing a "-1" code. Seems the BBC got there first.
Has the BBC apologised for misleading the public? Has it admitted the error? Of course not. It never does.
It is said that, once published, it is not possible ever to remove an article from the internet. If anyone with greater internet skills than I can find the original article, please let me know. The cache seems empty. The nearest I got was on simple Google search here which currently shows a reference to the original article:
BBC NEWS | Health | Call for free NHS prescriptions
Free prescriptions should be introduced in England as thousands of people are not collecting medicines because of cost, Citizens Advice has said. ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7265409.stm - 11 hours ago - Similar pages - Note this
and then a reference to the new article, under the same url:
BBC NEWS | Health | Prescription charge review call
Prescriptions charges in England should be reviewed as thousands of people are not collecting medicines because of cost, Citizens Advice has said. ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7265409.stm - 11 hours ago - Similar pages - Note this
More results from news.bbc.co.uk »
++++++++++++
Brilliant. News Sniffer is onto it already. They print the original version of the BBC article side by side with the altered version. Have a look here.Labels: apostrophes, biased bbc, citizens advice, free prescriptions
27 Comments:
As I have said before - it's a wealth-redistribution system with a health-care annexe.
llater,
llamas
You mentioned News Sniffer. A quick search there yields: Free prescriptions should be introduced in England as thousands of people are not collecting medicines because of cost, Citizens Advice has said.
Simon
Thank you so much.
News sniffer are brilliant! I checked them a while ago and either it had not yet been picked up by them, or I missed it. But no matter. It is all there now
Good old News sniffer
John
You're a bit of a conspiracy theorist, John. I'd call this a cockup. (And you could give them some credit for putting it right fast.)
Dr C, there’s an interesting blog called http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ which is worth a look.
Some of it’s a little bit far-fetched for my taste, but in their saner moments they do some sterling work in pointing out BBC errors such as this one, and using News Sniffer to highlight these ‘stealth edits’.
I’m not sure whether it’s conspiracy or cock-up most of the time, but I do object to the way they try to cover up their mistakes when they are pulled up on something.
You're a bit of a conspiracy theorist, John. I'd call this a cockup. (And you could give them some credit for putting it right fast.)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:40:00 PM
++++++
Jayann, with respect, that is bollocks. I am not suggesting a conspiracy at all. I am suggesting sloppy left wing journalists misrepresenting Citizens Advice so that they can advance the call for free prescriptions and then, when they get caught by someone who has take the trouble to read the source, they alter their report without comment, explanation or apology.
It is not a conspiracy. It is dishonest, disreputable journalism.
John
Dr Crippen wrote:
'It is dishonest, disreputable journalism.'
Well, it's the BBC, innit? What did you expect?
The BBC is to honest, reputable, unbiased journalism as the . . . oh, never mind, I'm sure y'all can fill in the blanks. But this is what you get when you create a broadcaster funded by the state out of taxes extracted from the populace by force.
There's never been a state broadcaster that's ever been able to resist the slide into political bias. From Radio Moscow to the Voice of America, they all dance to the tune of the piper that funds them. Why on earth did you think that the BBC would be any different?
You can't make this stuff up - a headline story on the BBC Radio One-Minute World News service for the US this morning is a conference of 75 African lesbian activists in Maputo, Mozamibique. I am NOT making this up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7266646.stm
llater,
llamas
I have posted the following to BBC NewsWatch, but I sincerely believe that it won't make it on air:
Will your news team have the courage to come on air and explain this justifiable outrage about biased reporting?
See:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2008/02/biased-bbc-and-citizens-advice.html
and then:
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/101932/diff/1/2
Free scripts suck.
Olive oil ear drops.
24 Paracetamol
24 Ibuprofen
50g E45
30 Co-codamol
All the above are available for about a pound, often less. All of them are prescribed regularly up here, thank to the Welsh Assembly scrapping prescription charges.
I agree.
Crazy.
What no one seems to understand is that if we pander to the unswerving doctrinalists and make routine home medicine cabinet contents free on the NHS, we will increasingly not be able to afford what we really need.
Have a free paracetamol and see the nurse practitioner.
John
I agree with The Welsh Pharmacist. Less than 10% of people pay for their prescriptions. Anybody on Income Support, over 60, or with various medical exemptions does not pay anyway.
Most of my patients that pay only have one or two items a month. (£6.85 or £13.70) If they have them regularly it's cheaper to pre-pay.
We get people moaning all the time. They "cannot afford to pay" then open their bags to reveal a mobile phone, packets of fags and an Ipod. It's all about priorities.
Standards at news.bbc.co.uk have been going steadily downhill over the last few years.
The headline games are not restricted to any particular topic. It happens all the time; it's particularly noticable if you use the RSS feeds, since the headline coming via the feed will be cached and differ from the headline you see when reading the article.
They don't seem to have any copy editing process any more, or if they do, their copy editors are simply crap. I regularly notice typographical and grammatical errors. It's very annoying.
They regularly parrot press releases without taking any independent/unbiased view on whether the PR is actually newsworthy. You've highlighted this with the "pharma" PR before; it happens in other fields too.
I think they value time-to-press above all else - exactly what I do not want the BBC for. "Ship it, we can always fix it later"
John, I'd assumed sloppiness. I do think you need some kind of evidence before you say
so that they can advance the call for free prescriptions
and also before saying they changed the story when (implication, because) they were caught out. (And see my next point.)
they alter their report without comment, explanation or apology
news.bbc.co.uk, timesonline.co.uk, etc., offer a rapidly updated updated news service. If they -- or indeed if even the papers in their printed form -- acknowledged every change, there would be no space for the *news*. Whether or not they should note the change/explain/apologise depends on whether the original report was culpably incorrect.
(IMO)
Welsh pharmacist, I think free prescriptions were a very bad move (particularly given the Welsh NHS's problems). I don't though see prescriptions for say 200 paracetamol, for patients who suffer from long-term pain but either can't take the stronger prescription-only painkillers or choose not to. (Yes, I'm thinking of me... .) Your list, well, doctors should learn to say no!
There's never been a state broadcaster that's ever been able to resist the slide into political bias. From Radio Moscow to the Voice of America, they all dance to the tune of the piper that funds them.
llamas,the BBC is, characteristically, hated by the government of the day. I do think its Governors caved in disgracefully re Gilligangate, and have been somewhat scared since. But, well, you are wrong.
MO opinion, there should be no such thing as a free prescription. You should pay a percentage of the cost (e.g. 10%) and certain things that are avilable over the counter (such as paracetamol et al) should be blacklisted.
Patients really have NO IDEA about the cost of the things they have and then, often, waste.
If they were made to pay, perhaps they'd respect it more.
Anyhow, off topic, sorry.
there should be no such thing as a free prescription. You should pay a percentage of the cost (e.g. 10%)
currently people whose prescribed items are not free (I was one till recently) often pay considerably more than ten per cent of the cost (unless they have pre-payment certificates); charging 10 per cent could be an own goal (it would also be inequitable; my medication's cheap, many people require expensive items; why should they pay more?).
and certain things that are avilable over the counter (such as paracetamol et al) should be blacklisted.
Once upon a time, I bought the analgesics without bothering with a prescription; I bulk-bought paracetamol BP etc.. Then the govt decreed such drugs could only be bought in small packs, one pack at a time, expensively; next time I went to the pharmacy, the pharmacist suggested I get them prescribed, in bulk.
If they were made to pay, perhaps they'd respect it more.
maybe. I suggest they'd know the price, not the value.
jayann:
If they were made to pay, perhaps they'd respect it more.
maybe. I suggest they'd know the price, not the value.
--currently they know neither
currently people whose prescribed items are not free (I was one till recently) often pay considerably more than ten per cent of the cost (unless they have pre-payment certificates); charging 10 per cent could be an own goal (it would also be inequitable; my medication's cheap, many people require expensive items; why should they pay more?).
--Because so few people pay, whatever way you look at it it would geberate more income. It would also have a positive affect on prescribing budgets as patients would, I expect, prefer the less costly option (my mother is one for sure, we have discussed at length). If savings in the drug budget/income were enbough, tax could be reduced which patients could then use to purchase insurance against these costs.
Once upon a time, I bought the analgesics without bothering with a prescription; I bulk-bought paracetamol BP etc.. Then the govt decreed such drugs could only be bought in small packs, one pack at a time, expensively; next time I went to the pharmacy, the pharmacist suggested I get them prescribed, in bulk.
--This was done to reduce the damage caused by overdoses of paracetamol (particularly impetuous ones) and has been largely successful. I take your point, difficult circle to square off!
For info, I am (part of the time) a PCT based pharmacist. I can hear Doc Crippen groaning from here!!
How about a low flat charge per item with no exemptions, the charge being decided by dividing the total number of items dispensed annually by the current total raised annually in prescription charges?
It would probably work out at about £1 - £2 per item. No increase in tax, no exhorbitant charges for anyone but a charge to make people appreciate that they are getting something and that there is a cost involved.
Wal-Mart offers a number of prescription drugs at four dollars (-$4-) for a month supply:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=546834
Look at the list. Now I'm curious. How would that compare to the UK?
Patented medications are a different story. There is no price control at a Federal level, so a brand-name medication or a medication that's still on patent might be significantly more expensive here.
.........arf
Sometimes it is conspiracy rather than cock-up at the BBC. Look at how they altered Lord Darzi's comments.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/97527/diff/5/6
Arf
The UK system is really not comparable. As I understand the Walmart scheme, it is intended for non-insured patients and families. In the UK almost everyone is covered by the NHS, and all prescribed items are either free or subject to a charge of £6.85 per item. 80-90% of items dispensed are not charged for; that isn't 80-90% of patients, as children, the over 60s, people with some chronic conditions and those on very low incomes don't pay, and those groups are more likely to need more scripts. People who need a large number of prescriptions who are not exempt can buy a pre-payment certificate for about £100 per year.
The prescription charge is simply a very inequitable and regressive tax, which has most effect on those who need medication but earn just enough not to be exempt. It has no relation to the cost of what is prescribed.
Looking at some of the items in the Walmart list, e.g. atenolol 50mg and fluoxetine 20mg, they could be bought from a pharmaceutical wholesaler for around twenty pence for four week's supply. The cost to the NHS of dispensing that prescription would be £2 at most, most people would get it without charge, a few would have to pay £6.85
Nobody here seems to believe taht sometimes people can't afford to pay the prescription charges for their medicine. I know from personal experience this isn't true. I was a low paid single worker who went to the Dr's with a skin complaint. After him trying a few things I was referred to a dermatologist who prescribed a list of 6 different things.
I couldn't afford to buy them all, and I also couldn't afford a pre payment certificate. So I went to my GP who told me the 1 thing I really needed which I paid for. I know this wasn't a serious illness, I wasn't going to die from my problems. But yes there are people who genuinely can't afford to pay for their prescriptions.
By the way I don't smoke, didn't have a mobile or pay for anything else fancy. In fact I was living in a room in a shared house and had nothing much except a portable tv.
--This was done to reduce the damage caused by overdoses of paracetamol
yes I know, and I thought it was a good move; it simply had unfortunate consequences for people like me!
I am (part of the time) a PCT based pharmacist
:)
Alan, although I'm sure the uninsured like the Wal-Mart thing, anyone is eligible for the $4 prescription. Actually, you have to be careful sometimes. If you use insurance, you might find the copay with the insurance is higher than the total cost of the prescription. You might pay ten dollars for a four dollar prescription.
I'll quietly choose not to comment on the prescription charge bandwagon since a lifelong dependency to insulin gives me the dubious priviledge of getting anything else I may need free as wel.
But I never miss the opportunity to engage in a bit of BBC bashing - last night I was on nights and it took them over 25mins to put up anything regarding the earthquake. I like to feel in some small part that I contributed to this since I sent a rather blunt e-mail along the lines of "an earthquake or tremor occurred over 15minutes ago why the hell aren't you onto this?"
breaking news as it happens, my arse
Google maintains cached pages :)
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:0FkuoHgaykYJ:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7265409.stm+Call+for+free+NHS+prescriptions+Free+prescriptions+should+be+introduced+in+England+as+thousands+of+people+are+not+collecting+medicines+because+of+cost,+Citizens+Advice+has+said.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
Anonymous wrote:
'Alan, although I'm sure the uninsured like the Wal-Mart thing, anyone is eligible for the $4 prescription. Actually, you have to be careful sometimes. If you use insurance, you might find the copay with the insurance is higher than the total cost of the prescription. You might pay ten dollars for a four dollar prescription.'
Damn straight. I have very good insurance but I used WalMart's $4 plan for my last prescription - 3 months @ $4 a month vs $15 a month. WalMart just put $32 in my pocket. WalMart doesn't care how you pay for their product - if you show up with insurance that covers it, they'll sell it to you under the terms of your insurance. If you show up with 4 dollar bills, they'll sell it to you for that. They actually leave it to the consumer to decide what's best for them - what a concept!
And, of course, the insurers, who have been on a nice little earner with their $10 or $15 co-pays for some prescriptions, are feeling the cold and - guess what? Co-pays are coming down and/or being eliminated, in order to compete with the WalMart position. Thsoe rotten bastards at WalMart, driving down consumer prices again - when is someone going to stop them?
llater,
llamas
You made a good point, although some commentators seem to have missed the wood for the trees a bit.Your life is so wonderful,Reading your article is a kind of enjoyment.Thank you.
Tactical Flashlights
r c helicopter
video game
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home