• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Radical ideas to revolutionise a broken NHS. Your thoughts?

Do you agree or disagree with these deas?

  • A&E drunk charge - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 22 27.2%
  • A&E drunk charge - Disagree

    Votes: 17 21.0%
  • A&E drunk charge - Agree

    Votes: 25 30.9%
  • A&E drunk charge - Strongly agree

    Votes: 13 16.0%
  • Legal Euthanasia - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 21 25.9%
  • Legal Euthanasia - Disagree

    Votes: 10 12.3%
  • Legal Euthanasia - Agree

    Votes: 28 34.6%
  • Legal Euthanasia - Strongly agree

    Votes: 15 18.5%
  • Sporting injuries charge - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 42 51.9%
  • Sporting injuries charge - disagree

    Votes: 21 25.9%
  • Sporting injuries charge - agree

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • Sporting injuries charge - Strongly agree

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Reasonable private medical insurance - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 34 42.0%
  • Reasonable private medical insurance - disagree

    Votes: 11 13.6%
  • Reasonable private medical insurance - agree

    Votes: 18 22.2%
  • Reasonable private medical insurance - Strongly agree

    Votes: 12 14.8%
  • Free nursing and medical degrees - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • Free nursing and medical degrees - disagree

    Votes: 7 8.6%
  • Free nursing and medical degrees - Agree

    Votes: 33 40.7%
  • Free nursing and medical degrees - Strongly agree

    Votes: 35 43.2%
  • National Service style scheme - Strongly disagree

    Votes: 42 51.9%
  • National Service style scheme - disagree

    Votes: 19 23.5%
  • National Service style scheme - Agree

    Votes: 8 9.9%
  • National Service style scheme - Strongly agree

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Total voters
    81
Status
Not open for further replies.

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
3,168
Training Doctors

Medical schools are oversubscribed: there is no shortage of suitable applicants. We are turning away potential doctors, even with the burden of student loans.

Training a doctor takes more than 5 years of medical school. Two foundation years in supervision follow school, with full GMC registration only after the first of these two years. Then it's a long path to specialisation - 5 years for a GP and more for other specialities. Studying while working for poor pay in an underfunded, creaking system. Many doctors quit medicine after qualifying or moving to other countries with better work/life/pay balance.

City firms recognise the intellect and dedication required to complete medical school and offer better salaries and better working conditions.

This disappearance of mid-level and other doctors leads to another issue: supervision and training. We can't squeeze any more through the sausage machine even if we wanted to: the supervisors are not there to safely cover the students we have, never mind increasing the numbers.

Bottom line - the NHS needs proper funding and a sensible overhaul instead of 12 years of cuts and transition to external organisations.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,551
Location
Taunton or Kent
BTW, I get very bored of the whole "we can't replace the NHS or we'd end up like the Americans" debate. Even the most right wing people I know I have no affection for the US healthcare system. (And I recently discovered that in the US the NHS is used as a similar bogeyperson as as if it were the only alternative to their own dysfunctional system.)
Just because most people do not want a particular thing to happen, doesn't mean politicians who want it to happen won't stop and not do it if it benefits them somehow, and there is a very long list of things that politicians throughout history have done that has broken manifesto promises or been done despite no-one being able to vote on the matter. It doesn't help that there are stories like below of Sunak visiting US private social care providers in late 2021. Okay the providers he was found to have talked to declined, but the fact he tried to get US private firms onboard on something to do with healthcare will only fuel beliefs that we'd end up with a US model. If Sunak went to talk to European private social care providers, then myself and many others would be more inclined to believe there is no risk of a US health model being adopted in the UK:


Rishi Sunak was rebuffed by US private healthcare leaders in a bid for investment into the UK during his contentious trip to California in December, i can reveal.

During a round-table discussion with multiple companies specialising in aspects of social care, Sunak encouraged the companies to work in the UK.

They offer a range of services including selling insurance to pensioners and connecting patients with carers.

According to partially redacted Treasury minutes of the meeting, seen by i, one of the meeting’s objectives was “to highlight opportunities for life science sector organisations in the UK, outlining the UK’s USPs”.

However, Mr Sunak was told by firms that they had little interest in working in the UK at the time.

The attendees told the Chancellor that they were focused on growing in the US, and currently would not consider expansion to the UK.

Attendees reported that they saw UK healthcare as lacking innovation, although they thought it had improved in recent years.

The minutes, labelled “Official Sensitive’” read: “US healthcare firms want to focus on their domestic market before contemplating expansion, because i) it’s so vast: population and spend per capita much higher than e.g. in the UK; ii) it’s complicated and idiosyncratic; it’s not a portable approach.

“UK healthcare has historically not been especially innovative, but some participants reported positive engagements where they’ve worked with the NHS recently.”

Mr Sunak held the breakfast meeting with the healthcare companies on 16 December. It was set up by the Treasury, as the UK faced an increasing number of coronavirus cases due to the Omicron variant.

A source in the Department for Health told i that Health Secretary Sajid Javid was adamantly opposed to making the NHS more similar to the American system.

In a recent speech, Mr Javid said: “When I look across the pond to the United States – the land of the free – healthcare costs nearly twice as much. Well, that’s not freedom for the millions of people who can’t afford it.”
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
Bottom line - the NHS needs proper funding and a sensible overhaul instead of 12 years of cuts and transition to external organisations.

But there hasn't been 12 years of cuts! Look for example at this graph by the Nuffield Trust (link to source and analysis). It shows that, if you allow for inflation and increasing population, the overall trend in health spending over the last 12 years has been of slightly increasing, with just a couple of years when it fell. Even more astonishingly, inflation-adjusted health spending per person today is nearly 4 times what it was in 1979 (when Mrs. Thatcher first came to power)! So much for more funding being the solution to NHS crises!


nhs-spending-nuffield.png
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,726
A rather high percentage of the new doctors I knew have left the NHS because "Modernising Medical Careers" meant that there was something of a working location lottery, and one that's fundemantally incapable of matching capable candidates with their preferred locations. In many cases it prevents people being given a job at just one location.

For people just out uni this is merely annoying, but once people try to settle down and start a family or even just live with a partner in one location, pushed people to leave either the country or the career.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

But there hasn't been 12 years of cuts! Look for example at this graph by the Nuffield Trust (link to source and analysis). It shows that, if you allow for inflation and increasing population, the overall trend in health spending over the last 12 years has been of slightly increasing, with just a couple of years when it fell. Even more astonishingly, inflation-adjusted health spending per person today is nearly 4 times what it was in 1979 (when Mrs. Thatcher first came to power)! So much for more funding being the solution to NHS crises!


View attachment 126656

Is an increasing amount of the increase in spending provision of profit for private providers, rather than actual NHS spending on provision of healthcare?
 

david1212

Established Member
Joined
9 Apr 2020
Messages
1,756
Location
Midlands
Training Doctors

Medical schools are oversubscribed: there is no shortage of suitable applicants. We are turning away potential doctors, even with the burden of student loans.

Training a doctor takes more than 5 years of medical school. Two foundation years in supervision follow school, with full GMC registration only after the first of these two years. Then it's a long path to specialisation - 5 years for a GP and more for other specialities. Studying while working for poor pay in an underfunded, creaking system. Many doctors quit medicine after qualifying or moving to other countries with better work/life/pay balance.

City firms recognise the intellect and dedication required to complete medical school and offer better salaries and better working conditions.

This disappearance of mid-level and other doctors leads to another issue: supervision and training. We can't squeeze any more through the sausage machine even if we wanted to: the supervisors are not there to safely cover the students we have, never mind increasing the numbers.

Bottom line - the NHS needs proper funding and a sensible overhaul instead of 12 years of cuts and transition to external organisations.

Given this the training system needs expanding, first of course more people are needed to do the training without taking them from treating patients - chicken and egg.

...
For example, I once saw someone arrive at an A&E department after being stung by a bee. The only circumstances in which you would need to go to A&E after a bee sting is if you are suffering a severe allergic reaction which is affecting your ability to breathe.
...
So even if open where would you go? GP's generally are not walk-in. Locally there is not a walk-in centre. Would a pharmacy help given the need is practical rather than verbal and selling some tablets / ointment etc.

The key is on arrival separating something like this from a potential broken bone requiring x-ray then maybe a splint if not plaster.

Who goes to the doctor for a laugh? People go because they are concerned about their health.

Some people are hypochondriacs, sure, but they'll just become slightly poorer hypochondriacs.

If there are e.g. lonely older people who go because they need a chat, then you've got a mental health problem there you need to actually solve (my local surgery does organised short local walks, which is one thing that can help against loneliness in older people).

Maybe they aren’t attending “for a laugh” but a significant number have become habituated to GP attendance. Frequently these visits are to discuss problems that could and should be self managed, coughs/colds strains/sprains. “Free” at the point of care fuels these visits where a nominal charge would at least mean they were given a second thought. These visits take £BNs a year out of NHS resources.

As an NHS employee I dislike the whole “NHS is FREE” concept, it leads to the NHS being viewed as some sort of charity organisation. The NHS isn’t free, it isn’t some sort of charity, we pay for it handsomely in our taxes.

Minor ailments are one issue while admittedly based on specifically on one person reassurance that an ongoing but stable health issue is not deteriorating as soon as they feel slightly less well is another. If every time there was a charge I'm sure they would not have made so many appointments.
Easy to say in theory but harder to manage would be a first appointment and followup / checkup visits scheduled by the GP free ( at the point of use ) but interim reassurance visits chargeable. If genuinely an appointment for different symptoms then again free ( at the point of use ).

It's not. GPs overbook quite spectacularly, most are running half an hour late by the end of the day. It's very easy to do that because you know your percentage of no-shows, and in the unlikely event of everyone showing you just run late by the end of the day.

I think not cancelling is rude and I would always cancel, but it isn't a problem and doesn't in fact prevent anyone seeing a doctor, because if everyone always showed up they'd offer fewer appointments. What does that is the chronic undercapacity.

You could charge for missed appointments, but it's a bit disingenuous to think that would be anything more than an opportunity to raise revenue.

While most are running half an hour late by the end of the day is true there are many possible reasons.

The first is not actually seeing the first patient at the ' working timetable ' time, e.g. 5 minutes after the appointment time given to the patient. ( This is the dentist but I have had the first appointment yet not even gone into the treatment room at the time the next patient should have )
The second is needing to either directly spend longer than the allocated time with a patient or to update their records and maybe initiate the next step before seeing the next patient.
The third is needing to deal with something urgent between appointments.

While the wrong approach a no-show will cut the lateness by say 10 minutes.
 

Broucek

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2020
Messages
955
Location
UK
Just because most people do not want a particular thing to happen, doesn't mean politicians who want it to happen won't stop and not do it if it benefits them somehow, and there is a very long list of things that politicians throughout history have done that has broken manifesto promises or been done despite no-one being able to vote on the matter. It doesn't help that there are stories like below of Sunak visiting US private social care providers in late 2021. Okay the providers he was found to have talked to declined, but the fact he tried to get US private firms onboard on something to do with healthcare will only fuel beliefs that we'd end up with a US model. If Sunak went to talk to European private social care providers, then myself and many others would be more inclined to believe there is no risk of a US health model being adopted in the UK:

There are important differences between healthcare providers and its funding mechanism.

Having American firms involved in provision does not in any way imply an end to the NHS model.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
2,009
That's another reason I advocate a social insurance scheme. People would see it as a separate line on their payslip and so would see what they were paying specifically for healthcare. This might lead to it being valued more, and equally to a culture that they are a consumer (a bit like students are now) and shouldn't accept when it's a bit rubbish.

Even if left as it is I would advocate, for this reason, separating the NHS component out from income tax. (No, NI doesn't pay for it, that's for other stuff like pensions). And I think I'd even separate it out for people receiving benefits on whatever statement they get regarding that, even if it means artificially inflating the benefit figure to "pay for" it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If people don't understand what NI pays for how is having another extra line for Health Insurance going to work particularly if this isn't truly representative of government expenditure on Health. And who looks at the detail on their payslips anyway once settled in.
Wow, just wow.

You are aware that there's been a huge growth in undiagnosed conditions because of people staying away from the NHS during COVID, right? And that those conditions are getting serious and biting people on the proverbial backside for having stayed away?
You are conflating two separate issues those to put it impolitely timewasters who do block up A&Es who did melt away in the early days of Covid and those unfortunate not to present with serious conditions later.
But regarding bee stings, if there are people who feel they need to sit and wait 4 hours to see someone about them because they don't know how to get them out, just have a junior nurse there who can deal with that sort of thing. (I refer back to my suggestion above that A&Es should actually be "one stop health shops" for things that people need advice about that aren't known in advance).
There are walk-in clinics co-located with A&Es staffed by nurses and GPs this isn't some new innovation. The 'freedom' NHS trusts have to choose how they provide care seems to have stymied their universal rollout. This isn't helped by the public as can be seen when moves to change provision away for a big shiny general hospital are interpreted as cuts and downgrades or moves to consolidate GP surgeries as removing access to healthcare.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
587
just fund it properly, the last thing the NHS needs is more managers mucking about "revolutionising" things.
As previously mentioned the problem in the NHS is not too many managers - there are a lot fewer managers than in similar systems.

Ultimately the things listed here probably wouldn't have much impact - Doing anything to discourage physical activity would be awful and may increase costs long term but regardless the resources used to treat those people are a rounding error

I do support "right to die" and have long felt that we do too much to keep people "existing" long beyond the point they are getting anything out of life and there is no realistic probability of it getting any better.

The question is how can we substantially reduce demand? I would argue that means a much bigger focus on prevention and promoting better general health like putting as much effort into weight management as we do with say smoking cessation instead of what we are doing in encouraging ever more sedentary lives / poor diet which is going to cause bigger problems down the line.

The more immediate thing is fixing the flow from GP to emergency care - there are still too many cases of people going to A&E when they really shouldn't be (the recent panic about Strep) being a great example.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,042
Maybe they aren’t attending “for a laugh” but a significant number have become habituated to GP attendance. Frequently these visits are to discuss problems that could and should be self managed, coughs/colds strains/sprains. “Free” at the point of care fuels these visits where a nominal charge would at least mean they were given a second thought. These visits take £BNs a year out of NHS resources.

As an NHS employee I dislike the whole “NHS is FREE” concept, it leads to the NHS being viewed as some sort of charity organisation. The NHS isn’t free, it isn’t some sort of charity, we pay for it handsomely in our taxes.

Conversely there would be those who, because they feel that they are paying for the service, will then demand to have an in person appointment, demand longer appointments, appointments at times that they want and so on.

The question is how that will impact on the NHS compared to the current situation?

Training Doctors

Medical schools are oversubscribed: there is no shortage of suitable applicants. We are turning away potential doctors, even with the burden of student loans.

Training a doctor takes more than 5 years of medical school. Two foundation years in supervision follow school, with full GMC registration only after the first of these two years. Then it's a long path to specialisation - 5 years for a GP and more for other specialities. Studying while working for poor pay in an underfunded, creaking system. Many doctors quit medicine after qualifying or moving to other countries with better work/life/pay balance.

City firms recognise the intellect and dedication required to complete medical school and offer better salaries and better working conditions.

This disappearance of mid-level and other doctors leads to another issue: supervision and training. We can't squeeze any more through the sausage machine even if we wanted to: the supervisors are not there to safely cover the students we have, never mind increasing the numbers.

Bottom line - the NHS needs proper funding and a sensible overhaul instead of 12 years of cuts and transition to external organisations.

One way we could deal with the lack of training capacity would be to employ people from overseas.

Having left the EU, it's a bit harder to employ people from the EU. Likewise making it harder and more costly to come here from overseas to work (a trend which has been happening for all least the 10 years), it's now not at easy (and requires more paperwork and cost to the NHS) to bring staff in from overseas.

Maybe if we could use any suitably qualified asylum seekers to work within the NHS whilst their applications are being approved (being the only exception to not being able to work) this could help desk with a number of issues (e.g. cost of the asylum seekers, lack of NHS staff, increasing tax take).

But there hasn't been 12 years of cuts! Look for example at this graph by the Nuffield Trust (link to source and analysis). It shows that, if you allow for inflation and increasing population, the overall trend in health spending over the last 12 years has been of slightly increasing, with just a couple of years when it fell. Even more astonishingly, inflation-adjusted health spending per person today is nearly 4 times what it was in 1979 (when Mrs. Thatcher first came to power)! So much for more funding being the solution to NHS crises!


View attachment 126656

Do those increases account for the aging population?

As those over 65 are more likely to use healthcare than those under 65.

Between 2011 and 2021 the over 65's went from being 16.4% of the population to 18.6% of the population.

In pure numbers that's 9.2 million to 11.1 million (+20.65%).

In 2019 42% of healthcare interactions for those for over 65's, that means for those under 65 (82% of the population) they use proportionately much less healthcare than those over 65. As the average is 0.31 interactions per person, with under 65 this is 0.21 whilst over 65 it's 0.81.

That's possibly hard to understand how that relates to a real world setting. Hopefully the below will help.

If we assume 1 unit of healthcare for each 1 million under 65 and 4 units for those over 65 then:

2011 = 90.9 units of healthcare
2021 = 100.6 units of healthcare

That's an increase of 10.7% of demand compared with a 6% increase in population.

This has been factored into the graph (the bottom line), which shows that over the last 10 years it's remained broadly flat.

However social care isn't counted in NHS spending, and so it's not so easy to see how that's doing in terms of money (I suspect that given it's council spending and the central government grant to councils has been cut, there's an increase in demand and council tax increases haven't been able to reduce the gap then it's likely to be cut significantly). However unless it's also seen a similar broadly flat rate of growth over the last decade when accounting for inflation and demographic changes then it's going to be putting pressure on the NHS through not allowing patients to leave hospital as quickly.

The issue we currently have is that we've got a significant backlog due to Covid.

Some of those longer waiting lists means more interactions with gateway providers (GP's, A&E, 111, etc.) making it harder for everyone to gain access to them.

Add to that the current 9.7% vacant posts in the NHS (due, in part, to a general shortage in the working population), meaning that is you want flexibility in your shifts there's limited risk in doing agency work over being an employee, which in turn makes the staff shortfall worse. This further increases pressure on NHS spending as the agencies take a fee on top of the wages paid.

Therefore it's not a surprise that the NHS (and probably Social Care too) is in need of more funding (at least in the short term) to be able to see significant reductions in waiting times from where we currently are.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Interesting article in The Telegraph today showing how other countries are having the same problems with their healthcare systems that we are having with the NHS.

It just goes to show that there are no easy fixes.


It’s not just the NHS: health services are imploding all over Europe​

Waiting times are surging, staff are leaving and patients are dying across the continent

Sick patients flood in at the university hospital, filling up already overcrowded wards.

With doctors and nurses overwhelmed – and many struck down by illness themselves – planned surgeries have been cancelled to help cope with the influx of winter admissions.

“There is a perfect storm going on right now – and we lack staff,” one health leader complains on television.

To British ears, this will all sound familiar. Yet these scenes are unfolding in Sweden, where a winter crisis not dissimilar to our own is also wreaking havoc with the health service.

“The spread of respiratory viruses is at a high level and the burden on the healthcare system is great,” the Swedish Public Health Agency warned on Thursday.

“Staying home when sick is especially important.”

Swedish and UK hospitals are far from alone. Across most of Europe, healthcare systems – ravaged for three years by the pandemic – are struggling with huge backlogs while they simultaneously battle a “triple epidemic” of Covid, seasonal flu and the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) this winter.

In Italy, medics have warned emergency departments are being “pushed to their limit” after flu cases hit their highest level for 15 years, while Spanish doctors have gone on strike over claims they are being chronically overworked. Authorities in France, meanwhile, have recommended people wear masks indoors again because of the rising number of infections.

As with Britain’s NHS, the crises are the result of short-term damage wrought by the coronavirus and long-term problems that have been stewing in the background for years.

After sidelining all but the most essential care during the pandemic, governments are now scrambling to reduce waiting lists. But they are juggling this priority with demands for greater funding to cope with older and sicker patients, while inflation eats away at their budgets.

The UK appears to have been hit harder by many of these challenges but their causes – from ageing populations to staff shortages – are common throughout the developed world.

But in interviews with the Telegraph, experts warned there are no easy or quick fixes for many of these issues. In the coming years, they will prompt searching questions about the provision of healthcare and how it should be managed without bankrupting the West.

“We get richer as a society in order to be able to invest and spend on innovations which allow us to live longer and enjoy more rewarding lives,” says Anita Charlesworth of the Health Foundation.

“What is challenging, when you fund the system through taxation, is that actually more and more of our taxes are going on the welfare state services that we value in our old age in particular.

“If we want these things over the medium to longer term, and it makes sense to provide them collectively, then the implications of that are that taxes as a share of GDP have to rise.

“Ensuring that's seen as fair, and that the public are happy to do that, is a challenge that all high-income countries are facing now.”

On the brink​

There were already signs that healthcare systems in the European Union were under strain before the pandemic, although performance across the bloc varied significantly.

In many countries this came after governments sought to repair their balance sheets in the wake of the financial crisis, trimming health spending or slowing increases.

According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), this resulted in a fall in health spending as a proportion of GDP in the UK, France, Italy, Denmark, Ireland and Greece from 2009 to 2019.

Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria and Finland managed to keep budgets flat or raise them slightly.

At the same time, EU populations continued to age, putting more pressure on health services. In the bloc’s 27 countries, the proportion of people aged 65 and above has risen from 17.5pc to 20.4pc.

Obesity surged as well, to about 60pc of the population in the European region – second only to the Americas – according to the World Health Organisation.

The rise of more complex health needs and flat or falling funding coincided with growing waiting times in many cases. They have climbed in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands in the decade following the financial crisis.

In 2018, the average waiting time for a knee replacement came in at 98 days in the UK, 152 days in Norway and 253 days in Poland, to give some examples.

Luigi Siciliani, a waiting times expert and professor of economics at the University of York, says this meant “health systems were already under stress pre-Covid”.

In Ireland, the government had been battling unsuccessfully to bring down waiting lists for years, with doctors’ associations blaming the problem on a lack of beds and trained staff.

The number of patients waiting for some form of hospital treatment stood at about 553,000 at the end of 2019 – well over target. But the pandemic has caused the figure to balloon even further to 897,300, almost one fifth of the population.

Likewise, the NHS waiting list in the UK stood at 2.3 million in 2009 but by early 2020 had increased to 4.3 million. Today, the figure is about 7 million – equivalent to more than a tenth of the population.

The coronavirus pandemic then dealt a devastating blow to all health services, as it forced them to prioritise urgent care for the huge influx of Covid patients and put off non-emergency procedures as they grappled with the crisis. Later efforts to ensure populations were vaccinated also sucked up time and resources.

During that period, many people avoided visits to the doctor or missed appointments, for fear of becoming infected or contributing to strain on the system.

According to the OECD, the true impact of these delays to care may not come to light for years. Those who missed cancer screenings could now be diagnosed at a later stage, for example, requiring more substantial and costlier treatment. Mental health problems that may have built up during lockdowns are also expected to have a lasting effect, adding to demand.

Overall, survey company Eurofound reported that more than one in five people in EU countries had foregone medical care, including examinations and treatments, during the first year of the pandemic – with a similar number reporting they still had unmet needs in spring 2022.

“We know that we've almost certainly missed a lot of serious illness during the pandemic,” says Anita Charlesworth, director of research at the Health Foundation and a former top civil servant.

“And being able to have a timely diagnosis is really important. Early diagnosis tends to be associated with better outcomes and it tends to mean that you need less complex healthcare intervention, which is more costly in the end.

“So early detection and diagnosis is in the patient's interest and it's also in the taxpayer’s interests.”

But the return of patients seeking care again, coupled with more limited availability as health services still grapple with Covid and other respiratory diseases this winter, is putting further upward pressure on waiting lists. It means more patients could see their conditions worsen.

And as with the initial shock of the pandemic, some countries are dealing with the resumption of normal services better than others.

“Most countries experienced increases in waiting times,” York’s Siciliani explains. “The size of the problem, the backlog and the waiting list seems more prominent in England than in several other European countries, such France, Germany and Italy, though not all of them.

"For example, Ireland, Portugal, Poland have similar or longer waiting times.”

There were differences in how health systems coped with the initial impact of the pandemic as well. Between 2019 and 2020, the volume of hip replacements dropped by at least 45pc in England but only by 20pc in Italy and Spain and less than 5pc in Finland and Denmark, the OECD found.

Part of this is down to the spare capacity they had pre-pandemic and the state of their workforces, including how stretched they are, experts say.

Charlesworth argues this is why the NHS in England has been hit harder than other countries.

“Going into Covid, we were already struggling to meet our performance standards, we had less capacity, so we had to delay more treatments,” she says.

“We have very high levels of bed occupancy, fewer staff and fewer beds, which means our resilience to peaks in demand is lower than countries like Germany and France.”

Pandemic hangover​

Like in the UK, the aftermath of the pandemic has piled pressure on healthcare systems across Europe as well.
Flu and other respiratory diseases have come roaring back as life returns to normal, while looming under more acute issues is the structural shift towards a more elderly population suffering from more chronic conditions.
Meanwhile, many healthcare staff – exhausted from the pandemic – are eyeing the exit.
Alessandra Taraschi, a GP in Rome and spokesman for the Italian Federation of General Practicioners, says these challenges are just as familiar in Italy as they are in Britain.
During the pandemic she and her colleagues had to work around the clock to help Covid patients despite great uncertainty around how to diagnose and treat them.
Then came the drive to vaccinate most of the Italian population. And now? A massive care backlog and growing anxiety among sickly patients.
“We’re really tired,” she says. “Many of us worked with burnout due to this workload. And now we have to manage all these examinations that haven't been done [during Covid].”
Taraschi has also noticed that since Covid, patients have become more anxious about minor health issues which they could easily manage themselves at home, such as colds and flu, and are seeking appointments with GPs.
Elsewhere, the situation in Italian hospitals will also sound familiar to Brits.
“There are huge waiting lists,” she says. “So people in hospitals have to work longer hours to get them down.
“There is also great demand due to flu and respiratory viruses.
“We don’t have enough beds for patients, so they have to wait a lot in the emergency department. But it’s not a problem of furniture. There aren’t enough doctors.”
Another long-running problem that continues to affect many health services is the state of their poorer cousin: social care.
Often, valuable hospital beds are being occupied by patients who should be discharged but are waiting for services in the community or a care home place. Being able to promptly discharge patients is vital, as otherwise they occupy beds needed by others.
“What do you do after the hospitals? It's a huge problem,” Taraschi says.
The social care system is struggling in the UK too.
“A lot of the problems that we're experiencing at the moment are the perfect storm of this pressure from infectious disease and Covid combined with problems of not being able to discharge patients,” Charlesworth says.
“Whereas in the past 20 years we've seen the amount of time patients stay in hospital fall, we are now seeing the amount of time that patients stay in hospital increase.
“The social care system was very, very fragile going into Covid.”

Rising demand for doctors​

A key issue behind capacity problems in both the health and social care systems is staffing.
In fact, a shortage of doctors and nurses is “a problem in virtually all developed countries”, according to Gaetan Lafortune, an economist at the OECD.
And although these concerns are not new, they have taken on a new importance after the pandemic.
“There are more doctors and nurses now in virtually all EU and OECD countries than there were 10 years ago, both on an absolute level and relative to the population,” Lafortune says.
“But this doesn't mean that the shortages have become smaller because the demand has increased more rapidly.”
In Rome, Taraschi says many doctors are retiring early because they feel depleted and worried about their personal health.
This is adding to existing staff shortages, while not enough young people are going into training.
It means that although Italy currently enjoys slightly more doctors per head than most of the EU – four per 1,000 people compared to 3.9 across the bloc – the number working in public hospitals and GP surgeries is declining.
With many of those remaining tending to be older and approaching retirement, the European Commission predicts a “significant shortage in the years to come, especially in some specialties and general practice” as they continue to leave the workforce.
On top of this, Italy employs fewer nurses than nearly all western European countries, with roughly 6.2 per 1,000 people, and the number of nursing graduates has been in decline since 2014.
In the UK, there were 8.7 nurses and 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people last year, according to OECD data.
British doctors tend to retire earlier than in other countries, with the UK retaining the lowest share of doctors above the age of 55 among OECD countries. The British Medical Association has warned that the way the NHS pension scheme and national taxation policies interact means the “most sensible course of action” for many doctors is to reduce their work or stop working altogether.
Exhaustion from the pandemic and inflationary pressures are also causing many staff to consider quitting their jobs across Europe, Lafortune warns, with discontent evident in the widespread strikes plaguing the continent.

In Spain, thousands of healthcare workers walked out in November. In France, the same happened in June. German doctors held strikes in March. Over the past two years, Danish nurses have been on strikes multiple times.

Ana Giménez, a representative of the State Confederation of Medical Unions in Spain, told local media that many hospitals were having to compete with private companies and other countries for trained personnel.

“It is a long and tiring career and the new generations are less and less willing to let their vocation take over,” she told newspaper El País in November.

“Instead of working in Leganés in the evenings in exchange for €35,000 a year to see 60 patients a day, they go to France to see 20 for €90,000.”

The story is similar in social care, where British providers are battling with supermarkets for potential recruits – and losing.

Dr Carolyn Downs, a researcher at Lancaster University, told MPs on a parliamentary committee that many social care workers are stressed by the lack of time they have to do essential tasks and travel between clients and complain of poor pay and “low status” in society.

The issue is so bad that even the opening of a new shop near a care home can trigger an exodus.

“We have had care managers saying, ‘I dread hearing Aldi is opening up nearby, as I know I will lose staff’,” Downs said in a written submission to the Health and Social Care select committee.

Funding cuts to local authorities – which are responsible for running the vast majority of social care – are partly responsible.

Per person spending on social care for over-65s fell by 31pc to £391 between 2009 and 2018, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

The funding squeeze has left councils unable to pay social care workers competitive wages, making it harder to attract recruits and exacerbating the staff shortages.

Britain’s exit from the EU, which has made it harder for European workers to get jobs here, leading to a drop in the overall size of the workforce, according to recent research by the Nuffield Trust.

But the shortages in social care have also had a more direct impact on hospitals, piling extra pressure on them and creating a toxic feedback loop.

The IFS estimates that as social care funding has declined, admissions of over-65s to A&E have increased by about 30pc. As much of half of that increase was probably attributable to the cuts, the think tank said.

But while many health services across Europe are all dealing with similar issues, the tighter situation in the UK health meant it entered the pandemic with very little spare capacity - making it more vulnerable to shocks.

“During normal times, we're running a very efficient system,” says Icaro Rebolledo, another economist at the Health Foundation.

“But once something gets out of control that is not normal, then because you running the system with less capacity then you're not able to cope with those unexpected shocks.

“That is one of the things that left the system less able to cope.”

More worryingly, research by the IFS recently warned that the coronavirus pandemic appears to have left the NHS able to treat fewer patients despite having more resources.

The Government has announced an extra £3.3bn of funding for the NHS in each of the next two years, meaning that by 2024/25 the budget will be 2.9pc higher than under pre-pandemic plans.

Overall, annual NHS funding is currently 11.1pc higher than pre-pandemic levels and the health service has 8pc more nurses and health visitors than before, at 22,700.

But the IFS said the NHS was still struggling to treat more people than it was in 2019.

No one really knows why, says researcher Max Warner, but it may be a combination of factors, from staff burnout to more complicated health conditions and even possibly a lack of managers who can look at things strategically.

York University’s Siciliani says there are tried and tested ways to bring waiting lists down, many of which were pioneered by the NHS in England in the 2000s.

They involve ploughing in extra funding, setting guarantees for maximum wait times and bringing in the private sector.

But the staffing shortages – not to mention widespread exhaustion – will make this much harder.

“The health workforce is exhausted, sickness and leave absences are high and recruiting or retaining personnel is more difficult, which slows down the recovery,” he says.

The call for yet more resources are also unlikely to go down well with ministers, who have already funnelled more cash towards the NHS at the expense of swinging cuts in other areas of government spending.

The Health Foundation’s Charlesworth says there is no clear evidence that one particular model of health funding works better than others. The NHS is funded entirely by taxes, like its equivalents in Sweden, Italy and elsewhere.

In France and Germany, patients must make compulsory payments towards a social insurance system. But this is little more functionally than a tax – and one that only targets working people, meaning that they bear all the higher costs when premiums have to rise.

Another alternative is to means-test provision, as is done in Ireland. There, only medical card holders qualify for entirely free healthcare and these are given out based on family income – making the system essentially a safety net.

Non-card holders must fund their own GP consultations and prescribed medicines, although they may access hospital care for free or at reduced rates.

Partly as a result of this, Irish government spending on healthcare is just 6.7pc of GDP, compared to 11.9pc in the UK.

But Charlesworth argues that the best way to better fund the NHS is to simply grow the economy, rather than necessarily adopt new funding mechanisms.

“In a decade where one of the biggest challenges we face is economic growth, putting more of the cost of our health care on to workers and employers, which is what social insurance systems do, does not seem to me to be intuitively attractive,” she adds.

“The biggest problem we've got really in affording our healthcare system is the lack of economic growth. So we want a flourishing economy that in the end, will help us to afford a flourishing NHS.”

As hospital wards across the Continent continue to fill up, and waiting lists elongate, coping with these new challenges is only going to become harder – whether it is in Sweden, Italy, Britain or elsewhere.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,218
Location
SE London
As those over 65 are more likely to use healthcare than those under 65.

Indeed. The problem is, those over 65 are also (for the most part) not working and therefore not generating any income for the country with which to pay for increased healthcare. Obviously that's no bad reflection on those people, who doubtless deserve their retirement. But it does mean that you have a problem of more demand for healthcare AND at the same time, a smaller proportion of people working and therefore able to provide for that healthcare.

Hard logic/mathematics should tell you that it's therefore unsustainable to expect that spending will just keep forever rising to match demand - especially when we know that providing all healthcare services for free will mean that demand becomes essentially infinite. If you want a sustainable solution, you have to do something to keep demand under control too.

That's an increase of 10.7% of demand compared with a 6% increase in population.

This has been factored into the graph (the bottom line), which shows that over the last 10 years it's remained broadly flat.

Indeed. Broadly flat - in other words, NOT decreasing (as was claimed upthread).
 
Last edited:

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,245
Location
UK
Generally I do not support a charge for sports injuries. The exception would be high risk sports e.g. skiing and recreation e.g. hang gliding, rock climbing but in reality again would the administration to introduce and operate be worthwhile.
So it's okay if I break my leg playing football, but not if I was on my snowboard?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,793
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If people don't understand what NI pays for how is having another extra line for Health Insurance going to work particularly if this isn't truly representative of government expenditure on Health.

Why wouldn't it be representative of Government expenditure on health? The whole point of it would be that it covers all spending on the NHS.

You are conflating two separate issues those to put it impolitely timewasters who do block up A&Es who did melt away in the early days of Covid and those unfortunate not to present with serious conditions later.

There are two issues, but the latter was significant.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,245
Location
UK
Interesting article in The Telegraph today showing how other countries are having the same problems with their healthcare systems that we are having with the NHS.

It just goes to show that there are no easy fixes.

Indeed, I think it's remarkable the number of people who think "Oh, a £20 fee for x" will somehow magically make people healthier.


We need to empower staff to make pragmatic decisions that benefit both us, and their organisation I the long run. If we can get 1 million highly motivated people (which we already have) and give them the power to fix problems that they face - we can achieve an organisation with truly astonishing performance.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,793
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Indeed, I think it's remarkable the number of people who think "Oh, a £20 fee for x" will somehow magically make people healthier

The idea of a fee is twofold - to bring in a bit more money and to make people think before they use an appointment, plus that a fee per GP visit seems fairer than a fee if you need pills but none if you need a 20 grand operation. But I don't think it is a proper fix.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
3,168
Given this the training system needs expanding, first of course more people are needed to do the training without taking them from treating patients - chicken and egg.
One way we could deal with the lack of training capacity would be to employ people from overseas.

Having left the EU, it's a bit harder to employ people from the EU. Likewise making it harder and more costly to come here from overseas to work (a trend which has been happening for all least the 10 years), it's now not at easy (and requires more paperwork and cost to the NHS) to bring staff in from overseas.

Brexit caused many doctors and healthcare staff to leave the country and the NHS. We're no longer seen as an attractive destination because of the environment and the working conditions.

It would be great to bring doctors in from abroad, though why would they when many of our home grown talent is leaving.


Another factor worthy of consideration of the lack of bed space though closures and the closure and or downgrade of many A&E departments.
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,646
Location
Huddersfield
Indeed. The problem is, those over 65 are also (for the most part) not working and therefore not generating any income for the country with which to pay for increased healthcare. Obviously that's no bad reflection on those people, who doubtless deserve their retirement. But it does mean that you have a problem of more demand for healthcare AND at the same time, a smaller proportion of people working and therefore able to provide for that healthcare.

Hard logic/mathematics should tell you that it's therefore unsustainable to expect that spending will just keep forever rising to match demand - especially when we know that providing all healthcare services for free will mean that demand becomes essentially infinite. If you want a sustainable solution, you have to do something to keep demand under control too.



Indeed. Broadly flat - in other words, NOT decreasing (as was claimed upthread).

To those who suggest that preventative medicine is the magic bullet, whilst it might reduce the issues people have (roughly) in their working lives, it means that they live longer and are thus more likely to get Alzheimer's and broken bones etc which was virtually unheard of when life expectancy was shorter. The trouble is healthcare systems are ponzi schemes, big pharma wants to make excruciatingly expensive drugs to keep people alive longer and the medical profession has no real desire to stop treating people who have no idea which planet they are on. Until (voluntary) uthenasia is brought in the situation will not improve.
Choosing 2010 as a baseline to say that pay has dropped in real terms is not fair as Blair had already made GPs etc big salary increases unmatched by the private sector and reduced what they had to do for that salary. Public sector pensions are generally much better than private ones to boot.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Hard logic/mathematics should tell you that it's therefore unsustainable to expect that spending will just keep forever rising to match demand - especially when we know that providing all healthcare services for free will mean that demand becomes essentially infinite. If you want a sustainable solution, you have to do something to keep demand under control too.

At last, someone has had the courage to say this.

The accusation is against the Tories is that they have cut spending on the NHS.

This is not truem as any objective look at the figures shows that spending on the NHS has risen in real terms since 2010, but that the increase in real terms per year has been less than under the 1997 - 2010 Labour government.

The other accusation against the Tories is that they have "underfunded" the NHS. If you are of the opinion that the NHS is "underfunded", then how much money would you say the NHS needs before it is fully funded. Yes, Sir Keir Starmer, I am looking at you.

When the NHS was first set up (75 years ago this year, on July 5th 1948) there were no prescription charges, and it was expected by Aneurin Bevin that NHS spending could be reduced once the population has become more healthy.

But within 3 years it was realised that this funding model was unsustainable, and the introduction of prescription charges caused some resignations from Clement Attlee's government.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the long term funding of the NHS was not looked at then, and it seems to me that governments of both political persuasions ever since have not addressed this question either.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,334
Location
Reading
Indeed. The problem is, those over 65 are also (for the most part) not working and therefore not generating any income for the country with which to pay for increased healthcare. Obviously that's no bad reflection on those people, who doubtless deserve their retirement. But it does mean that you have a problem of more demand for healthcare AND at the same time, a smaller proportion of people working and therefore able to provide for that healthcare.
Sorry to keep quoting the situation in Germany, but it's the only other country where I have a reasonable understanding of the health system - my deceased father-in-law was a country GP practising in Schleswig-Holstein and my wife was a nurse and then a nurse-tutor at a teaching hospital in the south of the country.

German pensioners continue paying health (i.e., sickness) insurance from their pensions. The logic is simple - while working they pay about 15% of their income (from an employer) to the Krankenkasse which is matched by the employer's contribution. When retired the pension fund essentially replaces the employer in suppling the income so the pensioner continues to pay the 15% of his/her pension to the Krankenkasse which is matched by the pension fund. Obviously the pensioner no longer pays for unemployment insurance so the effect on the 'take home' money is not quite so noticeable as would appear at first sight.

While this arrangement does not cover all the increased costs of an ageing population it does to a certain extent ease the financial constraints on the health system. Possibly something similar could be looked at here in the UK? (But I can already hear the screams of outrage...)
Hard logic/mathematics should tell you that it's therefore unsustainable to expect that spending will just keep forever rising to match demand - especially when we know that providing all healthcare services for free will mean that demand becomes essentially infinite. If you want a sustainable solution, you have to do something to keep demand under control too.
Yup! The are fundamentally two ways of controlling demand, one is by price and the other by queuing. The UK has chosen the latter, but more by accident than design. However for the same reason - ageing populations and relatively fewer people of working age - other countries, including Germany, are defaulting to the queuing model.

There are no simply solutions - radical or otherwise.
Indeed. Broadly flat - in other words, NOT decreasing (as was claimed upthread).
 

Phil56

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
199
Location
Rural NW England
No option for the NHS charging for "extras", such as private rooms, or standing MRI scans, or better hearing aids?

I've just paid a shed load for private hearing aids as the NHS ones were basically useless, so not only has that cost the NHS in terms of a couple of appointments, hearing test, and hearing aids that I'll never wear (but they can't take back), I've also spent again on getting private ones that actually do the job. If the NHS had offered me a choice, i.e. hearing aid A for free or hearing aid B for £x, then the NHS would have saved the wasted money on a set that will never be used and could have made a profit on the better option. After all, it's all that happens with NHS dentistry or NHS glasses - you're given options i.e. a composite filling for £x or a white/gold filling for £y, or free basic frames for children or better frames for £z.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,793
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
No option for the NHS charging for "extras", such as private rooms, or standing MRI scans, or better hearing aids?

There does seem to be a bit of a mental block on the idea of "buy-ups" on top of the basic service - the setup seems to be that you either go wholly private (which can be unaffordable even with insurance as most have a co-pay of some sort) or wholly NHS.

While I'd be opposed to "buy-ups" that improve the actual clinical outcome, as that's a bit unfair, I don't see why there's an issue with having them for things like you suggest, and it could be valuable extra income.

One key thing could be that GP appointments are offered as standard between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday, but you can "buy up" to one early morning, late evening or on a Saturday or Sunday for £50, say, or you can pay an extra sum per month to subscribe to being offered these. If, within the SLA for getting an appointment, you couldn't get a 9-5 one, these would be offered at no uplift. Private rooms are another good one, or standing/non claustrophobic type MRIs where there isn't a diagnosis of clinical claustrophobia. Another would be allowing a buy-up to white fillings or porcelain rather than composite crowns at an NHS dentist, rather than the NHS getting no money at all because you went wholly private. Or maybe to use a more expensive drug when a cheaper one fulfils the basic NICE requirement, e.g. to use rivaroxaban instead of warfarin* for a lower hassle blood thinning treatment.

This all (once again) feeds into a social insurance system, as a Contract of National Insurance would be drawn up stating the premium (as a % of income) and the entitlements in each area.

* Maybe a bad example because they prefer using rivaroxaban because warfarin actually costs more due to the nurse appointments, but you know what I mean, there are plenty of cases where there's a cheap basic option that works and a slightly better (maybe fewer minor side-effects, say) option you could buy up to.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
It seems that there are always people in the NHS who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are.

The Labour party are proposing to proposing to tear up the current GP contract and make them salaried employees of the NHS.

But these plans are opposed by, yes you've guessed it, the British Medical Assocation, as well as the Royal College of GPs, whose chairman came up with some complete and utter rubbish:-

“The partnership model of general practice delivers exceptional benefits for the NHS. It allows GP teams to innovate and tailor care and services to their local patient populations. It is extremely good value for money for the NHS because it relies on the goodwill of GP partners going above and beyond.”

GPs "innovating" and "tailoring care to their local patient populations".

You must be having a laugh.

I should think there is more chance of Prince Harry having a reconciliation with the King than seeing any innovation or tailoring of care from GPs.

It is worth noting that the British Medical Association opposed the creation of the NHS in 1948, so it is a bit rich of them now to criticise government and opposition proposals to tackle the current issues within the NHS.

The changes could cause a dispute between the Labour party and the British Medical Association, similar to that before the NHS’s foundation in 1948. At the time, the BMA was blocking the health service’s creation over the loss of doctors’ and consultants’ private earnings, which they thought would lead to a drop in income.The then health secretary, Aneurin Bevan, reached a deal with doctors that meant they could keep earning from private patients as long as they accepted NHS patients. He said later that he had struck a deal by “stuffing their mouths with gold”.

No doubt the medical establishment will be leaning on Sir Keir Starmer to make sure that Wes Streeting is not the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in a future Labour government, so that they can continue lining their pockets at public expense, whilst the NHS continues to be as bad as it ever was.


Labour ‘would tear up contract with GPs’ and make them salaried NHS staff​

Planned overhaul for GP surgeries puts party on collision course with British Medical Association

Wes Streeting has said a Labour government would “tear up the contract” with GPs, and could make family doctors salaried NHS employees.

The shadow health secretary said the way GP surgeries operate financially is a “murky, opaque business”. The proposed changes would put Streeting on course for a confrontation with the British Medical Association (BMA).


He also proposed a greater role for pharmacies doing procedures such as vaccinations, and suggested people could refer themselves directly to specialists rather than going through a GP.

GPs should no longer be the “sole gatekeeper” to the NHS, Streeting said. He added he wanted to replace GP surgeries with “modern health centres” with nurses and physiotherapists as well as GPs, and where scans could be taken.

In an interview with the Times, the Ilford South MP said: “I’m minded to phase out the whole system of GP partners altogether and look at salaried GPs working in modern practices alongside a range of other professionals.”

Under the current system, family doctors are funded partly by the NHS contract, which is linked to the size of a patient list and their requirements. They also get extra money for reaching targets, offering “enhanced” services and charging for private work, including issuing sicknotes.

The changes could cause a dispute between the Labour party and the British Medical Association, similar to that before the NHS’s foundation in 1948. At the time, the BMA was blocking the health service’s creation over the loss of doctors’ and consultants’ private earnings, which they thought would lead to a drop in income.

he then health secretary, Aneurin Bevan, reached a deal with doctors that meant they could keep earning from private patients as long as they accepted NHS patients. He said later that he had struck a deal by “stuffing their mouths with gold”.

Referring to Bevan’s quote, Streeting said: “There have always been people within the system who oppose fundamental change which, decades later, is widely accepted.”

The GP model already faces difficulties, as patients wait weeks for an appointment amid a shortage of family doctors. Figures last year revealed a shortage of 4,200 full-time general practitioners. A survey in the British Medical Journal showed a third more plan to leave in the next five years.

“I’m always prepared to work with people. We’re going to be actively consulting on this. I recognise it will be a big change. I want to listen to the profession and take people with us, but, more importantly, I want to get this right for patients. The NHS is so broken, we do have to think radically,” Streeting said.

The proposals will be contentious in the Labour party because it will put itself on a potential collision course with the BMA before the party has even won an election, at a time when wider industrial relations are already at the lowest point in decades with the incumbents inside No 10.
Prof Kamila Hawthorne, the chair of the Royal College of GPs, told the Times: “The partnership model of general practice delivers exceptional benefits for the NHS. It allows GP teams to innovate and tailor care and services to their local patient populations. It is extremely good value for money for the NHS because it relies on the goodwill of GP partners going above and beyond.”
Dr Kieran Sharrock, the acting chair of the BMA England GPs’ committee, said he had offered to meet Streeting to explain pressures on doctors, but agreed that the current contract needed to be “revamped”.
Streeting reflected on his own experience of the NHS after being diagnosed with kidney cancer in May 2021. He is cancer-free after an operation, but two follow-up scans were delayed due to backlogs, and he faced a frustrating journey to an appointment he thought was to have a scan, but instead was only a meeting to discuss it.
“It was a waste of my time,” he said. “Having had this experience as a patient, I am absolutely determined to drive improvements because this system isn’t working for patients, it’s not working for staff and it’s got to change.”
 

Adrian1980uk

Member
Joined
24 May 2016
Messages
843
I'm still of the opinion a large proportion of the issues are not funding but who's responsible for which budget is leading to inefficiency, ambulances queueing up outside hospitals do not cost the hospital anything but a bigger A&E does, where's the incentive for the hospital to expand A&E? Same with bed blocking, while they're in hospital it costs the hospital and not the social care budget, again where's the incentive for the managers of the social care budget to spend more money when their remit is to balance budgets.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,334
Location
Reading
It seems that there are always people in the NHS who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are.

The Labour party are proposing to proposing to tear up the current GP contract and make them salaried employees of the NHS.

But these plans are opposed by, yes you've guessed it, the British Medical Assocation, as well as the Royal College of GPs, whose chairman came up with some complete and utter rubbish:-



GPs "innovating" and "tailoring care to their local patient populations".

You must be having a laugh.

I should think there is more chance of Prince Harry having a reconciliation with the King than seeing any innovation or tailoring of care from GPs.

It is worth noting that the British Medical Association opposed the creation of the NHS in 1948, so it is a bit rich of them now to criticise government and opposition proposals to tackle the current issues within the NHS.
This is disingenuous.

It's often not realised, or sometimes conveniently forgotten by those who should know better, that there would have been universal healthcare whichever party won in 1945. The only difference - the only fundamental difference - was that the Conservatives proposed a regional system of self-governing entities and the Labour Party wanted a national system in the same way as it wanted a national railway system, a national coal system, a national docks system, national airlines and so on.

The medical establishment was fighting for the Conservative model of universal health care rather than the nationalised Labour model - both models were based on the conclusions of the Beveridge Report of 1942. Doctors were not opposed to the concept of universal health care per se, they simply did not want to be employees of a nationalised organisation.

The Conservative Party's 1945 election manifesto had this to say about health:
The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.

We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.

The success of the service will depend on the skill and initiative of doctors, dentists, nurses and other professional people, and in its designing and operation there will be full scope for all the guidance they can give. Wide play must be given to the preferences and enterprise of individuals. Nothing will be done to destroy the close personal relationship between doctor and patient, nor to restrict the patient's free choice of doctor.

The whole service must be so designed that in each area its growth is helped and guided by the influence of a university. Through such a service the medical and allied professions will be enabled to serve the whole nation more effectively than they have yet been able to do. At the same time Medicine will be left free to develop along its own lines, and to achieve preventive as well as curative triumphs. Liberty is an essential condition of scientific progress.

The voluntary hospitals which have led the way in the development of hospital technique will remain free. They will play their part in the new service in friendly partnership with local authority hospitals.

etc.

The whole text may be found at http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml

I live in hope that, one day, these debates will be based on facts, not beliefs.
No doubt the medical establishment will be leaning on Sir Keir Starmer to make sure that Wes Streeting is not the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in a future Labour government, so that they can continue lining their pockets at public expense, whilst the NHS continues to be as bad as it ever was.

 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
This is disingenuous.

It's often not realised, or sometimes conveniently forgotten by those who should know better, that there would have been universal healthcare whichever party won in 1945. The only difference - the only fundamental difference - was that the Conservatives proposed a regional system of self-governing entities and the Labour Party wanted a national system in the same way as it wanted a national railway system, a national coal system, a national docks system, national airlines and so on.

The medical establishment was fighting for the Conservative model of universal health care rather than the nationalised Labour model - both models were based on the conclusions of the Beveridge Report of 1942. Doctors were not opposed to the concept of universal health care per se, they simply did not want to be employees of a nationalised organisation.

The Conservative Party's 1945 election manifesto had this to say about health:


The whole text may be found at http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml

I live in hope that, one day, these debates will be based on facts, not beliefs.

Someone should remind the British Medical Association of the fact that they preferred the Conservative model of healthcare rather than the Labour one.

I suspect they wouldn't be too keen to have this point highlighted though.

But I think a system of regional self governing entities is the way forward in the long term, which would be more like the systems in most Western European countries.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,793
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But I think a system of regional self governing entities is the way forward in the long term, which would be more like the systems in most Western European countries.

It's nothing like the systems in most Western European countries, which are mostly social insurance based.

Some Scandinavian countries are like that, though.

The last thing we need is another postcode lottery.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,042
At last, someone has had the courage to say this.

The accusation is against the Tories is that they have cut spending on the NHS.

This is not truem as any objective look at the figures shows that spending on the NHS has risen in real terms since 2010, but that the increase in real terms per year has been less than under the 1997 - 2010 Labour government.

The other accusation against the Tories is that they have "underfunded" the NHS. If you are of the opinion that the NHS is "underfunded", then how much money would you say the NHS needs before it is fully funded. Yes, Sir Keir Starmer, I am looking at you.

When the NHS was first set up (75 years ago this year, on July 5th 1948) there were no prescription charges, and it was expected by Aneurin Bevin that NHS spending could be reduced once the population has become more healthy.

But within 3 years it was realised that this funding model was unsustainable, and the introduction of prescription charges caused some resignations from Clement Attlee's government.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the long term funding of the NHS was not looked at then, and it seems to me that governments of both political persuasions ever since have not addressed this question either.

The current funding use probably about right to keep the waiting lists the same (as was the case in 2019),. The issue is that because of Covid waiting lists have got a lot longer, which had an impact on other NHS services.

Although I would question if the money is being used the same now as in 2012 (TBH I don't know if it is or isn't), for example has there been increases in costs in PFI? If this has increased then it could well be that the spend on the rest of the NHS may not be as good as the headline figures indicate.

I'm still of the opinion a large proportion of the issues are not funding but who's responsible for which budget is leading to inefficiency, ambulances queueing up outside hospitals do not cost the hospital anything but a bigger A&E does, where's the incentive for the hospital to expand A&E? Same with bed blocking, while they're in hospital it costs the hospital and not the social care budget, again where's the incentive for the managers of the social care budget to spend more money when their remit is to balance budgets.

These sorts of things probably need looking into.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
3,168
At last, someone has had the courage to say this.

The accusation is against the Tories is that they have cut spending on the NHS.

This is not truem as any objective look at the figures shows that spending on the NHS has risen in real terms since 2010, but that the increase in real terms per year has been less than under the 1997 - 2010 Labour government.

The other accusation against the Tories is that they have "underfunded" the NHS. If you are of the opinion that the NHS is "underfunded", then how much money would you say the NHS needs before it is fully funded. Yes, Sir Keir Starmer, I am looking at you.

When the NHS was first set up (75 years ago this year, on July 5th 1948) there were no prescription charges, and it was expected by Aneurin Bevin that NHS spending could be reduced once the population has become more healthy.

But within 3 years it was realised that this funding model was unsustainable, and the introduction of prescription charges caused some resignations from Clement Attlee's government.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the long term funding of the NHS was not looked at then, and it seems to me that governments of both political persuasions ever since have not addressed this question either.

The budget may not have been cut "in real terms". However:
  • Beds have been cut, especially acute beds and those for the care of the elderly
  • A&E Departments have been closed and/or downgraded
  • Waiting times have spiralled for both elective and emergency cases
  • Money has been diverted from the NHS budgets to external agencies -
    • Serco and Capita for example - with questionable records of delivery
    • Growing group practices of GPs and other providers
Budget notwithstanding, the current government has been managing down the provision of the NHS through culpable neglect, if not wilful action.

1673211485657.png
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
2,009
The budget may not have been cut "in real terms". However:
  • Beds have been cut, especially acute beds and those for the care of the elderly
  • A&E Departments have been closed and/or downgraded
  • Waiting times have spiralled for both elective and emergency cases
  • Money has been diverted from the NHS budgets to external agencies -
    • Serco and Capita for example - with questionable records of delivery
    • Growing group practices of GPs and other providers
Budget notwithstanding, the current government has been managing down the provision of the NHS through culpable neglect, if not wilful action.
Do you have a link to the source of your chart because it does look strangely convient. The data I've seen is that between 2008 and 2012 the waiting list stayed quite steady at about 300,000.
 

MattA7

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2019
Messages
473
Out of curiosity why do so many Americans oppose the idea of a UK or Canadian based healthcare system. Our healthcare system is often mocked and ridiculed by Americans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top