Positive step but not sure why they settled on 85, I suspect it’s related to levels of infirmity and vulnerability but I would argue that 75+ also have a substantial rate.
So it was considered bad enough for the practice to be temporarily suspended, with lots of agreement about it being obviously exploitative to the vulnerable. But now it’s all ok because people over 85 (2.5% of the population), that are not in a care home and who haven’t already been switched, are covered? Fantastic. I’m sure the supplies are crying at not profiting from all… couple thousand of them… As much.
Personally I think it should be over-65s and under-10s.
Performative bollocks to make them look better. How many people does this actually cover?
4 comments
Positive step but not sure why they settled on 85, I suspect it’s related to levels of infirmity and vulnerability but I would argue that 75+ also have a substantial rate.
So it was considered bad enough for the practice to be temporarily suspended, with lots of agreement about it being obviously exploitative to the vulnerable. But now it’s all ok because people over 85 (2.5% of the population), that are not in a care home and who haven’t already been switched, are covered? Fantastic. I’m sure the supplies are crying at not profiting from all… couple thousand of them… As much.
Personally I think it should be over-65s and under-10s.
Performative bollocks to make them look better. How many people does this actually cover?