Neuroma and bad NHS service

[Energize]

So we've gone from the majority of drugs costing a couple of quid and the NHS making "such a high annual profit" to actually the cost of an average prescription being pretty much the same as the prescription charge to those that pay and free or subsidised to a large proportion.

Any money made being a fraction of percent of the NHS medicine budget, let along the NHS budget as a whole.

What's the source for the £140 million profit? I don't think it adds up with the King's fund data.

The key word here is average, the majority of prescriptions are for cheap generics costing a couple of quid, but the minority of really expensive drugs pushes the average up.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dhsc-annual-report-and-accounts-2017-to-2018

This says the revenue from prescription charges is £576 million, which would extrapolate to £598 million for 2018/2019.

The kings funds data differs but even if you use their data and apply it to that figure, the NHS would make roughly a £31 million annual profit from the prescriptions it charges for.

So the point to take away is, with socialised medicine in the form of the NHS, a minority of people that need expensive medications win, whereas the majority lose out.

 

[dowie]

So the point to take away is, with socialised medicine in the form of the NHS, a minority of people that need expensive medications win, whereas the majority lose out.

So not to different in principle to the service overall, supposing we went for some insurance model as per the likes of Switzerland and other European countries, you could say the same thing, for any sustainable healthcare system where you're going to have some cases that cost a lot in terms of money/resources then the majority is going to have to lose out. The same is true in general when it comes to say insurance.

Most people will pay more for their car or house insurance than they'll ever claim back etc... some people will "win" in that perhaps their house will burn down and they'll need a huge pay out that will eclipse whatever they've contributed and/or will contribute in future. The rest have to subsidise those people and of course the cost of running and insurance company + making a profit etc..

 

[Minstadave]

So the point to take away is, with socialised medicine in the form of the NHS, a minority of people that need expensive medications win, whereas the majority lose out.

Which is the same princie with private health insurance. Those that don't use it much don't get value for money, those that do need it will get a lot out of it. The biggest winner is the insurance company who will always put away a tidy profit.

The other alternative is just to have a health economy that is completely pay as you go. Which few devleoped countries do as its rather unpalatable to see children dying/loosing your house to fund your cancer treatment etc...

 

[DarrenM343]

That's the same with any kind of insurance, including extended warranty types.
It's a good idea to be prepared to pay privately too IMO, whether that's via private health insurance or simply putting money aside for personal health care. NHS is great for serious illness and especially sudden serious illness but are not great at the more routine problems, from your local doctor's surgery to the hospital it's a slow painful process. Would be nice if those who took out private medical insurance had a discount on their NI or something.

Had an issue a few years ago where my local doctor was saying try this, try that - round in circles for months. Paid to see a private consultant and it was a case of "we can get you in for an operation ASAP if you want it done" - no faffing around. To save £ the private consultant even got my local doctor's surgery to take samples. Didn't get the operation done but now all I need to do is call them if it flares up badly and we can pick up where we left off - unlike your local doctor's and hospital where you'd have to start from scratch no doubt.

IMO the NHS could do with an overhaul, not just more money thrown at it before doing so.

 

[Minstadave]

So you spent ages trying to get a problem sorted in the NHS, went private who offered an operation, which you didn't need/didn't take them up on - is that not a perfect example of the NHS approach being right?

You even dabbled back into the NHS for investigations.

That's one of the risks of private health care - over investigation and over treatment because the priority is to firstly make money (by doing stuff) and be seen to be doing stuff so you think you are getting value for money.

I spend the vast amount of my clinic time explaining parents don't need their kids investigating for their vague abdominal symptoms. In a private system I'd be sending them all for endoscopy and scans because it's what pays my wages and what the parents want, not what's right for the children.

 

[Energize]

Which is the same princie with private health insurance. Those that don't use it much don't get value for money, those that do need it will get a lot out of it. The biggest winner is the insurance company who will always put away a tidy profit.

The other alternative is just to have a health economy that is completely pay as you go. Which few devleoped countries do as its rather unpalatable to see children dying/loosing your house to fund your cancer treatment etc...

Insurance systems like the one Japan uses gives universal healthcare but has the advantage of taking the burden off people who have a healthy lifestyle, if people smoke they are more likely to get lung cancer thus pay more for insurance, personal responsibility is encouraged. Whereas with the NHS we have to fund people who choose to be obese, smoke and drink too much alcohol.

 

[glenimp617]

Insurance systems like the one Japan uses gives universal healthcare but has the advantage of taking the burden off people who have a healthy lifestyle, if people smoke they are more likely to get lung cancer thus pay more for insurance, personal responsibility is encouraged. Whereas with the NHS we have to fund people who choose to be obese, smoke and drink too much alcohol.

I've always thought the Japanese had quite a bit of common sense

We could do with some

 

[Minstadave]

Insurance systems like the one Japan uses gives universal healthcare but has the advantage of taking the burden off people who have a healthy lifestyle, if people smoke they are more likely to get lung cancer thus pay more for insurance, personal responsibility is encouraged. Whereas with the NHS we have to fund people who choose to be obese, smoke and drink too much alcohol.

How would you charge drinkers and smokers? No one would self declare if it cost them more. Loading the charge at purchase seems a lot more sensible.

 

[Energize]

How would you charge drinkers and smokers? No one would self declare if it cost them more. Loading the charge at purchase seems a lot more sensible.

It's a question on most health insurance policies and people declare it because they know their insurance will be void if they lie.

 

[garak112]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

I went to see my GP today and she was shocked at how long this is taking. She prescribed some pills for the flare up and has referred me to a different hospital for a second opinion.

Hopefully I should see someone within 6 weeks...