noblehead said:Costly business diabetes in dogs, when I had my dog at the vets last year there was a fella in front of me paying for his dogs insulin and syringes and the bill came to around £48, don't know how long a period this was for but made me pleased I have insurance cover on my dog.
RoyG said:Im going to get one of those SD Codefree meters just watched a DUK demo on youtube they look ok does what it says on the tin and £4.99 for 50 strips great value. But will someone tell me where they get the wooden demonstrators from for the videos, I am sure I could do a better job, they are always reading script of the auto cue so obvious, make me laugh every time.
borofergie said:You should try having T2 Diabetes. £48 is less than the cost of a month's test-strips. Our National "Healthcare" Insurance doesn't cover it.
noblehead said:borofergie said:You should try having T2 Diabetes. £48 is less than the cost of a month's test-strips. Our National "Healthcare" Insurance doesn't cover it.
Yes it is an outrage for those who are denied test strips on the NHS.
I have 2 the Contour and the Aviva the contour always seems to give higher readings than the Aviva , so I use the Contour as I was told not to keep swapping meters it sends you nuts. I will have 3 now?Defren said:RoyG said:Im going to get one of those SD Codefree meters just watched a DUK demo on youtube they look ok does what it says on the tin and £4.99 for 50 strips great value. But will someone tell me where they get the wooden demonstrators from for the videos, I am sure I could do a better job, they are always reading script of the auto cue so obvious, make me laugh every time.
Roy, the Code free is fine, BUT, do be aware it seems to read slightly high, so you will have to take that into account. I have my CF in the drawer as an emergency, I like my little CF. My Accu Chek eats batteries at a ridiculous rate, the CF certainly doesn't.
Shy girl, Try EBay or Amazon. I got mine on Amazon and my strips were £6.99 for 50. I now have a meter and strips on script, so don't use it, but it's a good machine, but as I say, does tend to read slightly high.
jopar said:Now I nor AmBrennen brought up T1 diabetes or even mentioned pumps first, but when Xyxxy says things such asNow, pointing out that this statement is wrong, I should have added that the NICE costings are based on an 4 year period, my pump cost about £2000 isn't due to be replaced until needs be, it has an estimated lifespan of 7 years, last year alone I saved £753 in clinic time, if I work it out over the last 4 years of pumping, I saved around £2500 in clinic time, so savings made in clinic time alone has covered the cost of the pump! I would estimate if everything stays the same by the end of the 7 years my treatment would have cost less than using the 'old fashioned' injections!xyzzy said:when you cost the NHS around £3000 for the pump and probably an ongoing £1000+ a year on its consumables. Presumably you could of remained just injecting the old fashioned way?
As I didn't bring up the subject of pumps or even T1 funding, I think the above could be said an positive contribution!
AmBrennen said:spend another £8 per day on CGM
Insulin pumps cost between £1000 and £3000. There are additional costs for the consumable attachments, eg infusion sets, batteries and pump reservoirs, which you may also have to pay for yourself. Consumables could amount to between £1000 and £2000 per year.
AmBrennen said:helping the babies with cancer
AmBrennen said:helping the babies with cancer
jopar said:Problem with excepting anecdotal information from forums such as this, you have now way of validated the information being provided not even whether several usernames posting claims are actually individual people or just one person using several accounts! And that's before you consider are they giving accurate truthful information and adhering the methods they claim to be using!
Jopar said:And that's before you consider are they giving accurate truthful information and adhering the methods they claim to be using!
jopar said:xyzzy said:AMBrennan said:TL;DR: The decision about which medical interventions should be financed should be made by experts in the relevant field (which we are not) who are familiar with the relevant research (which we are not) and thus able to make an informed decision (which we are not)."
What a sad grey drab view of life you have. If everyone had such a blinkered and naive view as that nothing would ever change.
Now I wouldn't say what AMBrennan wrote as blinkered!
We are biased and looking at everything from purely a personally view point, we need people who can take a step back to look at the bigger picture, and read between the lines of information put forward to them so they can make an unbiased decision in everybody's interest and not just our own and our view point, as we are only expert in our own diabetes..
AmBrennen said:TL;DR
AmBrennen said:The decision about which medical interventions should be financed should be made by experts in the relevant field (which we are not) who are familiar with the relevant research (which we are not) and thus able to make an informed decision (which we are not).
RoyG said:Shy Girl, Ebay, homehealth-uk the full kit with 50 strips £15.95 just make sure you check the box the you are DB,
lucylocket61 said:So, to get back on topic.....
What seems to be emerging is that our experience doesnt count as it is anecdotal evidence.
So maybe we need to find a respected researcher who will do the proper research and record the findings in a way that is acceptable to the Establishment in order to be taken seriously and be believed by the NHS.
I respectfully suggest that this should be our top priority. Once the facts are established, then we can move forward to have them accepted and implemented.
According to this not:Unbeliever said:I don't know the history of test srip use and prescription by the NHS but imagine that at some stage before any decision to issue them to T2s was made there must have been some cosultation/research etc.
Anyone know anything about that?
O'Kane and Pickup, quoted on p 42 in‘The widespread use of SMBG
(particularly in type-2 patients) is a good example
of self-monitoring that was adopted in advance
of robust evidence of it clinical efficacy’.
However, the generalisability of the study
is limited by the ROSSO source data being drawn
from a longitudinal retrospective study, not a
randomised trial. Tiley110 noted that SMBG could
not be considered to be the sole source of the risk
reduction. Other interventions would also have
‘played a part in the outcome; these including
regular educational input, regular screening
and more regular dietary advice and medical
consultation’ among the SMBG group.
Thus identification of potential
subgroups of those patients who would receive the
most benefit from SMBG should be identified,
perhaps by some qualitative work to identify
characteristics of those most likely to benefit
(which may be about patient attributes rather than
treatment) followed by a RCT.
I'm not being hostile, just getting you to think about the bigger picture how the system works, who makes the decision how they make them and what constraints are involved etc...
You and I, may know the benefit of testing that enable diabetics to change their lifestyles for the better, but in the case of T2's they are on fighting a battle from the back foot... the general public perception of T2's diabetics, and information contained within in current trail studies and what the powers to be see within this information that the base their decisions on at group level...
phoenix said:Sorry to be negative ...
AMBrennan said:My understanding is that there is no evidence showing that testing is effective in T2.
AMBrennan said:TL;DR: The decision about which medical interventions should be financed should be made by experts in the relevant field (which we are not) who are familiar with the relevant research (which we are not) and thus able to make an informed decision (which we are not).
lucylocket61 said:So, to get back on topic.....
What seems to be emerging is that our experience doesnt count as it is anecdotal evidence.
So maybe we need to find a respected researcher who will do the proper research and record the findings in a way that is acceptable to the Establishment in order to be taken seriously and be believed by the NHS.
Phoenix said:and the Weber cost analysis is dismissed in the HTA document
However, the generalisability of the study
is limited by the ROSSO source data being drawn
from a longitudinal retrospective study, not a
randomised trial. Tiley110 noted that SMBG could
not be considered to be the sole source of the risk
reduction. Other interventions would also have
‘played a part in the outcome; these including
regular educational input, regular screening
and more regular dietary advice and medical
consultation’ among the SMBG group.
xyzzy said:Given the move to largely handing over treatment of T2's to GP's in the up coming government reforms that is the group we will need to persuade in my opinion. If GP's can be persuaded that T2 testing can under using strict guidelines save them money it will be adopted whatever the case as "money talks".
lucylocket61 said:So, to get back on topic.....
What seems to be emerging is that our experience doesnt count as it is anecdotal evidence.
So maybe we need to find a respected researcher who will do the proper research and record the findings in a way that is acceptable to the Establishment in order to be taken seriously and be believed by the NHS.
RoyG said:And that is the reason why I am charting all my readings, Blood pressures, Pulse, weight, waist size and my food diary and carb intake with notes showing my general demeanor. Whilst I can afford the strips, it may just show him. That it does not make you paranoid as he & DSN suggested it would. Does give the patient the tools needed to have a direct impact on their condition for the better. Maybe the next patient that he diagnoses who cannot afford the strips may well benefit, so long as they are shown how to use the information they gather. but while they stick to the NHS diet I don't know how? That is another story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?