This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The reason private prescribing is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
Post #29 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Private prescribing: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
MHRA is the regulator. Licensed incretin analogues are prescription-only medicines. NHS and private prescribing routes exist with materially different access criteria and costs.
Two sentences on private prescribing and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
The claim about private prescribing upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Answering the question post #33 raises rather than the one it answers.
Waiting times are the most variable and least generalisable thing reported here, and they are worth posting anyway with a region and a date.
That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.
The number people quote for private prescribing is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
Private prescribing was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
The most useful contribution is a link to the current official page with the date you accessed it. That survives; a paraphrase does not.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
Two people in this thread mean different things by private prescribing and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
Anyone quoting an eligibility threshold should say which document it comes from. The thresholds have changed and the old ones are still circulating.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Ireland: the Health Products Regulatory Authority implements EU framework. Prescription-only. Reimbursement for weight management has been more restrictive than for diabetes. Private prescription at full cost is usual for weight management.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.
Cross-border arrangements: some people source from other EU countries. Rules on import for personal use are changing post-Brexit. Current status requires checking with UKVI.
I read post #48 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Summarising the private prescribing thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about private prescribing than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Where guidance distinguishes between indications, quoting the indication is essential. The same compound has different positions under different indications.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
Worth separating two things that post #51 runs together.
Private prescribing is legal and widespread, including through remote consultation. Pharmacies must satisfy themselves that a prescription is clinically appropriate. Expect to be asked for measurements and history.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
This follows post #51 rather than contradicting it.
A note on scope: what I am saying about private prescribing applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
What would change my mind on private prescribing is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Where a member reports a decision, the useful detail is the stated reason rather than the outcome, because the reason is what generalises.
Members outside these two jurisdictions reading this thread should note that none of it transfers, including the parts that sound general.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
Taking post #55 at face value and following it one step further.
Availability through a private route and availability through the public system are separate questions and both change independently.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
Answering the question post #55 raises rather than the one it answers.
Source for the private prescribing figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.