In 2018, Boots faced intense criticism after investigations found that it had billed the NHS more than £1,500 for a moisturiser that normally retailed for under £2. A subsequent Times investigation identified at least five occasions between 2013 and 2017 when Boots charged more than £3,200 for a medicinal mouthwash used by chemotherapy patients to treat mouth ulcers, even though an independent supplier charged approximately £93 for the same product. The arrangement was particularly controversial because Boots had obtained the mouthwash through Alliance Healthcare, a supplier owned by its parent group, creating the appearance of money moving through a vertically integrated corporate structure at the NHS’s expense. Walgreens Boots Alliance denied that it was deliberately overcharging and argued that bespoke, urgent orders explained the extraordinary prices. The affair nevertheless became a vivid example of how a trusted high-street health brand could become entangled in opaque internal pricing, public-sector procurement and accusations of profiteering from medical need.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
The £1,500 Moisturiser and Boots’ Alleged NHS Overcharging Scheme
Boots and Alliance Healthcare / 2010s
In 2018, Boots faced intense criticism after investigations found that it had billed the NHS more than £1,500 for a moisturiser that normally retailed for under £2. A subsequent Times investigation identified at least five occasions between 2013 and 2017 when Boots charged more than £3,200 for a medicinal mouthwash used by chemotherapy patients to treat mouth ulcers, even though an independent supplier charged approximately £93 for the same product. The arrangement was particularly controversial because Boots had obtained the mouthwash through Alliance Healthcare, a supplier owned by its parent group, creating the appearance of money moving through a vertically integrated corporate structure at the NHS’s expense. Walgreens Boots Alliance denied that it was deliberately overcharging and argued that bespoke, urgent orders explained the extraordinary prices. The affair nevertheless became a vivid example of how a trusted high-street health brand could become entangled in opaque internal pricing, public-sector procurement and accusations of profiteering from medical need.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.