EBME Forums Forums Free discussion Free discussion The Death of the NHS?

And if patients could afford to "go private" ... would the outcomes be better, or worse?

I am amazed how quickly post-operative patients are back on the bus these days. But, on the other hand, perhaps it's a fair risk, when balanced against the possibility of picking up "something else" during the 48-hours you are in there, sweating away.


Yes ... no doubt we've all seen examples of that. But as Mr. Lansley has now been in charge for a while, one wonders when he is going to do something positive about it!

Oh! He is. It seems that more "goals" are being set up (perhaps I should have said "yet more"). You couldn't make it up, could you? If it wasn't so serious, you would think they are having a laugh!

Anyway Sean, if you're planning to keep this thread running, maybe you need to check-out some of the figures first. And, whilst you're at it, take a look at what happens in other parts of the world. Here, for example. Or, take your pick. But any way you look at it £ 120-odd billion a year is a lot of dough (hey, I could retire on that ... then everyone would be happy)!

I have two things to ask here (neither of which has to do with the original post..... sorry Huw)

1/ seems your post counter has got stuck at 9979 there Geoff and...

2/ what happens if you pass 10K, do you turn back into a pumpkin or something?

Hopefully it causes a hard reset and then when it re-boots all post counters come up as zero. You know, just like that other Non-Event failed to do (the so-called Y2K nonsense).

Hopefully Huw is working on it even as I write.

Meanwhile ... how about some input on the topic being considered? The state of government healthcare Down Under, for instance.

soon, grasshopper, soon.............

but not 'til next year perhaps

Hi Everyone & Happy New Year.
Interesting debate which has covered a lot of areas, however, getting back to the original point regarding up to 49% of total patients in one Trust being "private", there needs to be some logic applied to this statement and also some reading between the lines.
Firstly, La La Langsley does not have a clue about what really happens on the "shop floor" despite all of his "listening" exercises. He doesn't listen and he speaks to the wrong people.
All NHS Trusts have to meet 18 weeks treatment times for all patients and from April the thresholds are tougher and penalties will be applied. As most Trusts are running at 95%+ capacity and cannot meet 18 weeks for all specialities, especially Trauma & Orthopaedics, then logic dictates that they can't cram in private patients as well as they don't have the capacity to accomodate them!
Secondly, any patient that is re-admitted within 30 days of discharge will not be paid for. Therefore, hospitals will not try and get them through the system any quicker, in fact the reverse. This will reduce capacity.
Lastly, the section of the bill that alludes to lifting the 9% current limit on the number of private patients treated by Trusts is good example of Langsley's loss of reality as there are only a handful of Trusts that are actually at that level now and most only have 5% or less.
Unfortunately, the NHS Bill, if it is passed in time, will only destabilise the NHS more than it is now as the GPs do not have a grasp of the complexity of commissioning and contracting, they only know that they wish to alter clinical pathways to keep patients out of hospital and hopefully line their own pockets!!
For Trusts to survive they need to co-operate with the GPs and Commissioning Boards, get lean and operate efficiently.
I could go on about lean efficiencies but I might upset too many people!!??
Anyway, I'll climb down from the soapbox and let someone else have a say.

No ... please feel free to upset as many as need be!

Having just read your post there Kawa I can't help but notice lots of percentages and stuff like that.

And it seems that the only remedies you have to offer are along the lines of "co-operation", "efficiencies" and suchlike.

OK ... neither of us hold the office of Health Minister, but I would suggest (as I believe that Sean may have intended when he kicked off the thread) that by now we should have moved on from "lessons shall be learned" ... and more into the realms of "major surgery required".

Meanwhile, I would encourage all those still involved in the "below decks" world of the tech support of (and even fixing) kit to just ignore (as much as one can) all this scare-mongering stuff and just crack on with the real work.

I'm with Kawa on this. My initial thoughts were, where will the private paitents go? We are understaffed at the moment and run at near 100% capacity. We already have a shortage of Doctors & Nurses in this country. Does this mean we will have to pinch staff from private hospitals, forcing some of them to close down or will it open the floodgates for more foreign nurses & doctors to come in? I'd imagine that private healthcare companies would be angry at the NHS pinching their business and probably seek some sort of compensation from their (sorry, our) government. Have I just managed to turn the argument around, making it sound like a good idea? I can't see the NHS competing (or being allowed to) with the private market.

To be honest Bill, I'm not even sure what the "argument" is!

I would suggest that the real issues here are:-

1) Over population (that is, they keep letting them in)!
2) Ageing population (that is, they keep hanging on)!
3) Fat, lazy population (that is, demanding much more than before)!
4) Drunken, violent population (that is, wasting limited resources)!
5) Feckless, dependent population (that is, can't be bothered to look after themselves)!