As ever when budget cuts are considered the current beneficiaries are screaming blue bloody murder and insisting that they're only talking about the public good not their own wallets:
Nearly 300,000 people, many of whom are elderly and live in rural areas, will have to travel five miles more to collect their medicines because of a Government subsidy cut.
The study by the House of Commons library laid bare how much further the ill and sick will have to travel for medicines if pharmacies close because of a cut in a vital subsidy.
The news comes as campaigners will today start a four day challenge in the High Court against the cuts.
That's not quite what the study does say:
297,384 people would see increases of more than 2½ miles but less than 5 miles.
68,376 people would see increases of 5 miles or more
Note that this is all people, not just the elderly, nor even those needing prescriptions.
But to the money. So, those 300,000 claimed, the savings will be £200 million. That's £600 odd per person per year.
Median income is in the mid £20 thousands these days, so why not call that 2% of annual income for those affected? Which gives us the question, is having a nearby pharmacy worth 2% of annual income?
No, we don't know either but we do think that's an interesting way of phrasing it.