Mounjaro rise may push some to black market
"With changes in the environment and new clinical evidence supporting the value of Mounjaro, we are now aligning the list price more consistently to ensure fair global contributions to the cost of innovation," Eli Lilly said. It means the suggested price for a month's supply of the highest dose of the drug will rise from £122 to £330, although the rise for lower doses will be smaller.It does not affect the price the NHS pays, as the service has negotiated a heavily discounted rate for those getting the drug on prescription.
The weekly injection works by making people feel full so they eat less food. Ad, 37, from Telford, a dad of two young children, has been using Mounjaro for seven weeks as a private patient. "About 12 years ago, I managed to lose quite a lot of weight and then quite rapidly, put it right back on," he said. "I had [lost weight] through exercise and healthy eating, and since then I have yo-yo'd up and down."Since starting Mounjaro Ad has lost two stone (12.7kg). "I was definitely a binge eater, I was a chocolate addict and I haven't touched a piece of chocolate since starting Mounjaro," he said.
"There's a lifestyle change that's come with it," Ad explained.It is something his partner Nicola has noticed too."What I've seen over the last seven weeks has been a massive improvement, he jumps around with the children like I've never seen him before," she said.But Nicola said the upcoming price rise was a concern."I think for us we have got childcare costs, I am going back to work next month, so we will have some more income coming in but it has been a tough slog," she said."And we do need to weigh up whether we can afford it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Couple hit with £100 parking fine at NHS surgery despite spending just five minutes there after being refused emergency treatment
A couple received a £100 parking fine at an NHS urgent care centre - even though they stayed there for just five minutes after being refused treatment. Rebecca Elmes drove her boyfriend Aaron Rayment-Davis to Harold Wood Polyclinic in Romford, east London, after he developed a crippling pain in his left ear. After walking into the reception on the evening of June 16, they were told the clinic was only open for triage and they would need to try the A&E department at a local hospital instead. The pair, both 26, walked back into the car and drove off - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later. Parkingeye - a private firm that turns over £57million a year - noted that their car had arrived at the car park just after 6.50pm and spent only five minutes there before leaving. Patients are required to enter their number plate details into a machine at reception to get free parking, but the couple insist they never had the chance to do so. 'When we arrived at the clinic, we went to put our number plate into the machine but you can't do that before you've been booked in and seen,' Mr Rayment-Davis, a quantity surveyor, told the Daily Mail. 'We'd only been there for a few minutes so assumed there would be no issue. We wanted to get to the other hospital as quickly as possible because I was in a lot of pain. I also felt completely disoriented and couldn't hear out of my left ear.' The pair, both 26, left the surgery after just five minutes when they were refused treatment - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later Ms Elmes and Mr Rayment-Davis appealed Parkingeye's £100 fine but the company turned this down on the basis that 'no parking was purchased' - even though the couple insist they had no chance to do so. However, they reluctantly agreed to pay a reduced fee of £60 to avoid being liable for the full £100 amount. Ms Elmes, who works at a groom at local stables, called the decision 'absolutely ridiculous'. 'We were there for five minutes - they literally turned us away and didn't give us a chance to do anything,' she said. 'They are just milking everyone - and in a medical situation where people are seriously injured or ill it's even worse. 'Parkingeye rejected the appeal saying we didn't have a good enough excuse. 'We were worried that if we didn't pay the £60 and continued appealing we'd be out of pocket.' Mr Rayment-Davis was assessed in the A&E at nearby Queens Hospital Hospital but told the wait time would be four hours and it would be better to go to King George's in Ilford instead. When he was eventually seen to, he was told he had an ear infection and a burst ear drum. 'The doctor explained that it was a good thing I was seen, as leaving it longer would have led to more infection and damage,' he said. Parkingeye is one of the biggest private parking companies in Britain and operates more than 3,500 sites nationwide, including hospitals, supermarkets, hotels and service stations. It uses automatic number plate technology to scan registration plates, and then pays the DVLA to assess the owner's address, which is the only way it can properly enforce fines. As with several other private parking firms, it has repeatedly been criticised for its aggressive tactics. The Government is currently carrying out a consultation on proposals to 'raise standards' in the private parking industry following a barrage of customer complaints. Holly Edwards previously received a £100 fine for parking outside the Harold Wood Polyclinic while she was having a scan. The company director was confident about getting it overturned after she sent Parkingeye a GP appointment note showing she was there legitimately. The company rejected her appeal on the basis that she had failed to input her car registration details. But Ms Edwards insisted she did type in her registration details as requested - and said the claim she hadn't 'angered me even more'. Controversially, drivers are often not given a receipt by Parkingeye's registration machines, meaning they often have no evidence if the company accuses them of inputting it incorrectly when they receive a fine. A Parkingeye spokesperson said: 'The car park at Harold Wood Polyclinic features 12 prominent and highly-visible signs throughout providing information on how to use the car park responsibly. 'This includes guidance that parking is for patients and visitors only and that they must register their vehicle at terminals at reception to receive free parking for the duration of their appointment. 'The terminals on the ground and first floors are both available and accessible to visitors before being booked in by reception staff. The motorist correctly received a parking charge on June 16 for parking and not registering their vehicle. 'Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge. If anyone has mitigating circumstances we would encourage them to appeal. 'The motorist's appeal was rejected due to not providing any evidence for breaking the rules of the car park, payment of the charge was then made.'
BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
Sussex families feel 'ignored' over Brighton maternity review
Families calling for an inquiry into maternity care in East Sussex say they feel "ignored, exhausted and dismissed" after meeting the chair of a national group met with Baroness Amos on Wednesday, claiming she was poorly briefed and that no progress was families, who all lost babies under the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Trust, have been campaigning for 18 months for an inquiry and insist that senior midwife Donna Ockenden is appointed to lead Department of Health and Social Care has been approached for comment. In June, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced a rapid review into maternity services in England and last week appointed Baroness Amos, a former senior diplomat, to lead it. Streeting said he wanted the work to be completed by December and that up to 10 local areas would have their maternity services examined as part of the families in Sussex, who say medical errors led to their babies' deaths, were promised a review by Streeting and the group thought the meeting with Baroness Amos would progress the they said the chair told them that she was not aware of the history or expectations of the families, and that she did not have the power to decide who would lead it. 'Deeply dispiriting' "We have spoken to Wes Streeting directly and to the Department of Health & Social Care again and again about the toll these meetings take on us," the families said in a statement."To set aside an hour of our time for a meeting where appropriate preparation had not taken place was deeply dispiriting, and to feel we have still not made progress on our review, despite many months of presenting a clear case for one, drafting the terms of reference and securing the support of Donna Ockenden, is infuriating."Ms Ockenden is currently leading a review of maternity care in Nottingham having previously examined services at the Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust. Shortly before the meeting, the families were told that Kathryn Whitehill, a former inspector with the Care Quality Commission, had been appointed as an investigator on the review, causing anger among several families who had suffered poor maternity care."Bereaved parents had been promised they would be consulted on any appointments and have consistently fed back to the government that this investigation cannot be undertaken by anyone working for the regulators responsible for holding trusts accountable for maternity safety," the statement from the families added."These organisations are part of the system that has continued to deliver unsafe maternity care, and as such should be part of the focus of the investigation rather than leading it."The appointment of Ms Whitehill "raises serious doubts about whether the review can be independent or trusted", the statement added. Bereaved father 'not surprised' by maternity reviewHarm at risk of being normalised in maternity careParents 'destroyed' after baby dies The concerns of the group come in the wake of criticism of the rapid review last week from a wider group of Maternity Safety Alliance, which represents families from areas which have experienced poor maternity care, said Streeting's inquiry was "doomed to fail" before it has begun due to the behaviour of the Department of Health and NHS other families have however expressed a willingness to work with Baroness Amos.
Times
32 minutes ago
- Times
Ministers tell baby food firms to cut salt and sugar
Baby food manufacturers have been given 18 months to cut sugar and salt from their products as the government brings in new guidelines to address 'misleading' labelling. The new guidelines will help parents make informed choices about what they feed their children, the Department of Health has said. Manufacturers will need to change the recipes of their products to reduce levels of salt and sugar without the use of sweeteners, which is not permitted in commercial baby food. The guidelines will also prevent manufacturers from using 'misleading' marketing claims to make products appear healthier than they are, with labels such as 'contains no nasties', when they are actually high in sugar. The announcement comes after data for 2019-23 from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, published in June, found that more than two thirds of children aged 18 months to three years are eating too much sugar.
