NHS reforms

My two big problems with the proposed reforms: firstly that there's no mandate for them. Cameron specifically promised "no top-down reforms of the NHS" in his election campaigning, and yet here they are with one of the biggest shake-ups in its history relying on semantics (apparently it's a bottom-up reform). Nobody voted for this, and I suspect the election result would have been different had the public known the Conservatives' true intentions.

Secondly I have a real problem with GP commissioning. There are only two ways this could go: either GPs handle their own commissioning (and therefore have less time to spend with patients); or they contract it out, effectively buying in from a for-profit company a service they currently receive from the PCT.

The government say this will increase choice, but in reality we'll still be directed to whichever service our GP prefers. Even if there was an appetite for increased choice, and there's precious little evidence, this wouldn't be a way of providing it. We'll either end up with a situation where there's a true postcode lottery, with patients of one surgery denied treatment they could get from another GP; or we'll end up with bloated corporations like Serco or Capita raking in profit for providing a service previously managed by the existing PCTs.

It's ironic that as the USA slowly creaks towards copying the better parts of the British system, our government seems determined to go in the exact opposite direction.

And don't be under any illusion that this "listening exercise" will yield any major changes. The policy is already being enacted despite never having been voted on. PCTs and hospitals are culling staff, others are leaving before they're forced out, waiting times are increasing, non-urgent procedures are being cancelled, and for-profit comanies are licking their lips. The reforms may be watered down, Lansley may be forced to fall on his sword, the Lib Dems may threated to derail the process, but mark my words the government will force the substantive parts of this bill through no matter what the opposition.

And we'll end up with a situation similar to the railways, where private companies rake in massive profits and the result is the taxpayer having to pay more while getting less.

And with Andrew Lansley on the board of one or more private healthcare providers once he has left his cabinet post.

Incidentally, we were debating how much patients really want "choice" earlier. They already have choice in some areas, and yet...

Quote:

---

Patients made little use of available information on the performance of hospitals; just 4 percent consulted the NHS Choices website and 6 percent looked at leaflets, both of which provide comparative information on hospital performance"

---

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/document.rm?id=8687 (PDF)

I'd rather be guided by a doctor with years of training and experience than look on a website and trust my gut feeling, thanks.

I don't want to choose. I just want whatever problems I have sorted.

I had a bit of an accident while mountain biking on Saturday morning. Although I'm not in as much pain as I was I have an ankle the size of an elephants due to the swelling. I've just had a trip to the local minor injuries unit which also happens to be on the estate I live on. I was seen is around 2 minutes and had an X-ray in around 10 minutes. Luckily for me I havent broken anything but bloody hell was it a good service. Sure as hell beats waiting around in A&E when I know my injury is rather painful but not exactly an emergency. To be fair I've never had many complaints of the NHS previously but I am well impressed with the service I got tonight. :) The NHS gets a big :up: from me today.

No doubt this will be dismissed as my quote comes from the bed-wetting pinko commie rag The Guardian, but anyway:

Quote:

---

The number of patients waiting more than the recommended maximum of 18 weeks to be treated by the NHS has soared by almost half since last year, official data shows.

A total of 28,635 patients in England who were treated in an NHS hospital during August had been waiting more than 18 weeks, compared with 19,355 in the same month in 2010 – a rise of 48%.

The figures, released by the Department of Health, confirm that despite repeated ministerial pledges that the NHS would stick to waiting time targets despite growing financial pressure, the number of people having to wait beyond the department's own recommended maximum time is rising.

The 28,635 is the largest number since the coalition came to power last year, when the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, reviewed or eased several NHS waiting time targets.

---

Source: Sharp rise in NHS patients waiting more than 18 weeks for care | Society | guardian.co.uk


NHS reforms going well, Mr Lansley? :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

Seems privatisation is fine for the Labour party but unacceptable for the Tories.

---

Well at least we agree on one thing, Guardian = hypocrites

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by driveace

He said the hospital was spotless ,food was good and he is now sorted.

---

The UK's quality of life index slipped under Labour esp re healthcare, other countries spend less and have less staff yet get better results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Am I alone in not wanting to make a choice in every single aspect of my life — where I get my electricity, who provides my gas, where I go to hospital? I have enough choices to make on a daily basis as it is.

---

As you've already shown you prefer to be told what to do by Nanny State.

More choice will mean better standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

It worked when the likes of gas, eletricity & communications were privatised all those years ago.

Who benefitted from that?

---

Well I did, re shares plus far better service these days than back in the dark days (often literally) of nationalisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malbec

The blunt answer is that we will reach a point in the future where we won't be able to afford that safety net.

Healthcare costs are rising way above inflation as is demand. Thats not just the case for the UK, that applies to pretty much the entire world. I remember an American study that claimed that if US healthcare costs and demand kept rising at its current rate then healthcare spending would reach over 100% of projected GDP by 2050 or so.

Like final salary pensions the NHS in its original state is a system that worked well when people were expected to die at the age of 60-65. Now people live 20 years beyond that and the system has to adapt to meet the rise in demand. We also live in a reality where the electorate firmly believe more can be delivered for less tax burden and any political party that tells them otherwise pays the price. Politicians are also too frightened to confront the public with the truth, if they want affordable healthcare then in future there needs to be a public debate about what we can expect the NHS to cover and what it shouldn't. Meanwhile making the system more effective and efficient by introducing and refining a competitive system involving private healthcare will keep things going for a few more years.

I too am strongly attached to the concept of a healthcare system free at the point of use and where treatment choices are not decided by affordability but by clinical need regardless of wealth. I just wish there was a real debate about healthcare and not just the usual lowest common denominator mudslinging as usually happens.

---

Public sector pensions need a complete overhaul bringing them in line with private ones, they need to pay in a lot more, work longer and not get as much out - welcome to the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

And we'll end up with a situation similar to the railways, where private companies rake in massive profits and the result is the taxpayer having to pay more while getting less.

---

Been happening since 97, costs increase services become worse.