Do you have any proposals that you would like the top up health care to provide that the new NHS wouldn't? I'm struggling to see a fair place to put the line that is fair for everyone which isn't all inclusive (excluding cosmetic).
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Do you have any proposals that you would like the top up health care to provide that the new NHS wouldn't? I'm struggling to see a fair place to put the line that is fair for everyone which isn't all inclusive (excluding cosmetic).
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Starts with drugs, if no generic form available, then drug treatments over x amount are not covered. Generic forms will become avilable as licences expire, costs are cheaper, people can access the meds.
Its a proposal, which you asked for, I have no full data on the topics, but its a start.
wow you really are blinkered by your love for the tory destruction of the NHS
4 hours is a key target for hospital A&E to meet, how would you like to wait 5, 8, 10, 24 hours in A&E to get that broken arm, leg, etc to be dealt with.
who says it's all broken arms, could be they're just now completely ignoring all the Muppets with colds etc hoping they'll get bored and go home.
would dramatically increase waiting times but considerably improve results....
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 1,038
- Location
- Colchester, Essex
Or have a front loaded model (consultant led triage) to tell them to go home...
Didn't you know, a hospital that treats everyone at 3 hours and 59 minutes is bound to have better outcomes than one that treats people according to need...
So a life saving drug is denied because it is currently licensed? Perhaps we could draw a line under life extending to a certain degree?
Not really.
There's several ways you could do it, like maximum cost of treatment, so new top end medicine/techniques aren't available unles should go private. Or maybe a max spend per person. But I'm not in NHS or in the know of what's needed/not needed.
By no means is it ideal, but it's currently unsustainable like our budget as a whoe.
It realy does leave you two options raise more money (which no one wants), limit NHS (which no one wants), this is why public opinion democracy does not want. People want everything for nothing.
There is a slight twist on the limiting the NHS, and that is a maximum age in which expensive procedures are performed (more so then currently). I really am against a young and otherwise healthy person being denied treatment because it is expensive and the NHS should do everything to ensure that person could live a full life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
I think a start point, is patients, as in the customers need to be aware of just what it is costing to treat them. It wold force areas of the nhs to actually qork out what they provide and how much it is costing, and the patient presented with a bill, marked paid.
It might eventually lead to a situation where mrs twenty five stone heffer, who now has type II diabetis can be told to lose some weight, and if she chooses (her fat assed choice) to increase her weight to thirty stone, then the nhs can forgoe treatment until she makes moves to change her lifestyle.
It might eventually lead to a situation where mrs twenty five stone heffer, who now has type II diabetis can be told to lose some weight, and if she chooses (her fat assed choice) to increase her weight to thirty stone, then the nhs can forgoe treatment until she makes moves to change her lifestyle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
I actually meant for future drugs being considered for use.
Costs are spiralling, limiting needs to happen somewhere.
Is there any evidence that the profile of reasons patients visit A&E has changed in the last 3 years or are you just trying to obfuscate the debate again?
This already happens, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) have the job of decided the cost-effectiveness of new drugs, and whether they should be available on the NHS.
Or it could lead to all sporting injuries not being covered by the NHS, or injuries relating to drunkenness. There are better choices for restrictions than that...
Well not necessarily just that. You can tackle it from that way but you can also leverage private income. We've lost out bigtime to the States and Germany (thanks to Labour saying they were capping etc) but there are areas which could really benefit from this.
I don't think you can necessarily limit healthcare necessarily limiting social care and that comes down to immigration policy. It is not difficult to see which things are costing money, which populations they are prevalent in and to see a pattern which is still not being addressed. Add that into the postcode lottery where people get poor care all over the country and others can hop off at Heathrow > Hillingdon > cutting edge care in Central London.
I do agree people should have their care detailed people just don't know what it costs. We used to mark all the equipment with cost price so staff knew what they were using. It definitely reduced overheads.
where did i say the profile had changed?
i simply said maybe they changed their triage procedures now they no longer had to make sure the hypochondriacs/non urgent got seen in the same time as the broken limbs because of time targets.
Truly horrific article about what the privatised NHS is going to look like: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2013/04/tails-wagging-dog-how-outsourcing-eroding-nhs-services
It should be noted that Serco have "form" for fiddling data to make its performance seem better than it actually is. Is anyone confident that another Mid Staffs-style scandal won't happen again when these arrangements are implemented nationwide?
It should be noted that Serco have "form" for fiddling data to make its performance seem better than it actually is. Is anyone confident that another Mid Staffs-style scandal won't happen again when these arrangements are implemented nationwide?
hey i don';t think you can say that about the drunks unless you remove the tax on the alcohol down to just VAT.
bit harsh to chage them to cover the cost of thier drunken stup[idity then not actualy provide the care.
If they only perform as badly as the nhs, we haven't lost anything
PHP:
Rubbish as usual - how about comparing like with like when the NHS was funded better and see the NHS performed well. Strangely enough now the Tories have pulled the rug out then things are going downhill fast.
I eagerly await that 5 year old King's Fund report based on information 5 years preceding it to substantiate your point there whilst woefully ignoring all the King's Fund reports that came subsequently (when the NHS was better funded for a period of time closer to a European level) that demonstrated it was both Efficient and Effect and Modern and Dependable - both I believe were Labour's visions when they came back into power. Along with all the other stuff that demonstrated that when properly supported the NHS does a good job. I suspect as usual you'll ignore we treat more, for less, etc etc and how competitive practice goes against the whole remit of whole specialities and areas.