The REAL reason why no one should pay for their medicines – and it could save the NHS millions…

It was called “a dark day” for patients… which might seem like a somewhat, um, dramatic way to describe a 25-cent increase in prescription costs.

The increase took the cost of medicines to £9.90 each.

But really the point made by community pharmacists who are probably aware of these things was that these costs have been unaffordable for many for a long time.

They called them “a tax on the working poor.”

No doubt they, like many doctors I know, believe these fees should be eliminated altogether.

And as a health reporter for more than two decades, I think they have a point – not just as an act of charity, but because research shows it will actually save the NHS a fortune in the long run.

It’s counterintuitive, I know. But listen to me.

First, if you, like me, pay for your medications, you might be surprised to know that most people don’t.

A large number of people – under 16, many under 18 and everyone over 60, diabetics, pregnant women and new mothers, to name a few – are exempt from the fee, meaning the new increase for won’t make any difference to them.

If you add all these groups together, around 90 percent of all NHS prescriptions are given for free anyway.

In my opinion, many of the exemptions are arbitrary or poorly thought out. For example, why is the levy waived for people over 60, while the retirement age is 65?

Why are women getting a whole year’s supply of HRT at a huge £20 discount, while some serious conditions such as asthma, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease and Colitis, motor neuron disease, cystic fibrosis, stroke and Parkinson’s are still off the list ? exemptions list.

Yes, it is true that some people need HRT due to health problems such as early menopause, and without it they would feel extremely ill. And there are women who say HRT has been life-saving, helping to alleviate serious mental health problems where no other treatment would.

But there are many more groups that also need medication to stay healthy and, in many cases, alive.

And why do patients who are exempt from prescription fees for medical reasons get all their prescriptions for free, and not just the medications related to the condition for which they are exempt?

You could say that the annual income generated by the charges in England – roughly £600 million – is no small sum, given the dire straits our NHS is in.

And wouldn’t eliminating reimbursements lead to a sharp increase in demand for medicines, exacerbating existing shortages?

Honest questions. But there was no great rush in Wales, where fees were abolished in 2007, or in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which followed suit in 2010 and 2011.

Meanwhile, the NHS in England already spends £19 billion on giving away medicines, so £600 million is starting to look a bit symbolic.

And a recent survey conducted by the Prescription Charges Coalition found that one in 10 people skip medications because of the cost of prescriptions. Others took half doses to make their pills last longer.

A third of them subsequently developed other health problems, and half had to take leave.

Other research links costs to increases in doctor visits, trips to the emergency room and hospital stays. A recent analysis found that if Parkinson’s and inflammatory bowel disease were exempted from fees, it would actually save the NHS more than £21 million a year.

Fewer patients would become ill and require a hospital stay or emergency care. Less GP time required. Less misery. Similarly, poorly controlled rheumatoid arthritis, which is often caused by people not taking their tablets, is costing the NHS millions. But if we got rid of the charges, more people would take their medications and the country would be healthier as a result.

That certainly makes sense?