Nhs-the Beginning Or The End

[Rinrada]

Does this sound the demise of the NHS or is it just a bunch of Greedy consultants on a political kick

Can it survive in its present form or must it change?

Do you have any faith left in it as an effectice Health Service Organisation?

February 25, 2004

Doctors want all patients to buy insurance

By Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor

Underfunded NHS can never meet demands, say consultants

FIVE HUNDRED hospital consultants have called for a radical reform of the NHS to put power into patients’ hands.

Rejecting the Government’s claim that a tax-based healthcare system is best, the doctors say that systems in Europe, based on compulsory insurance, work better.

Such systems liberate doctors and patients, encourage innovation and are fairer, according to a new group, Doctors for Reform, which launches itself with a full-page advertisement on page 18 of The Times today.

The 500 consultants who signed up for the group say that they are committed to the NHS ideals of equitable and universal healthcare but believe that this could be better achieved by other methods of financing.

“The NHS as we know it has had its day,” Professor Karol Sikora, an oncologist and one of the founder members of the group, said. “You can fiddle about with it and patch it up, but with an ageing population and high-tech healthcare, something has to give.

“Everything else we need today we can get very easily: air travel, holidays, cars. Why can’t we get healthcare that easily? The form of funding is the key.

“To change it is a radical step. Politicians are very ner-vous. But we have to do it if we want a system that is focused on the patient and open to innovative ideas.”

The Labour Party reacted to the group, which claims to be independent and non-party, by claiming that it was the Conservative Party in disguise. A spokesman said: “I wouldn’t want doctors to be misled by this Tory front organisation.”

But the group says that it has members from all three major parties, including a Liberal Democrat, and is not promoting the Conservative policy of patient passports.

One of the founders, Dr Christoph Lees, an obstetrician, said that the group had been disappointed by a report by Derek Wanless for the Treasury two years ago which concluded that taxation was the best way to pay for healthcare.

“We need to go back to the founding principles of the NHS, providing a genuinely equitable system,” he said. “Continental countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland do that better than we do.”

The group believes that a system based on compulsory social insurance would work better. In such systems, everybody pays for a basic insurance plan defined by law, with insurance companies competing for customers. The policies must provide a mandatory and comprehensive package set at the national level. Employers may or may not contribute: in France and Germany they do, in Switzerland they do not.

Poorer people have their insurance premiums subsidised, or paid virtually in full.

Patients can go to a wide variety of providers for care and operations. An alternative is a voucher system, as in Denmark, which patients can use to get care from wherever they want.

Such systems can provide flexibility, genuine choice, and excellent healthcare, Doctors for Reform says, giving doctors and patients freedom and getting away from the centrally planned and politically driven NHS.

“The NHS was conceived more than half a century ago, at a time of rationing and considerable poverty,” the group says in its manifesto. “We once believed it was the finest healthcare system in the world. Today few healthcare professionals would make that claim.”

Dr David Wrede, a gynae-cologist and another of the group’s founders, said: “The NHS is like a huge lumbering supertanker, slow to change direction. And it isn’t equitable.

“There is really a four-tier service. Poor provision in poor areas, excellent care if you happen to be near a teaching hospital, health insurance for elective operations for those who can afford it, and cash. If you have cash, you can get treatment right away.”

Dr Wrede is a Liberal Democrat who stood as parliament-ary candidate for the party in the 1992 general election. Another supporter and signa-tory is Professor Philip Steer, who advised Robin Cook when he was Labour health spokesman in Opposition.

Dr Maurice Slevin, an oncologist and a founder of the group, said: “I don’t think the NHS has a future when patients have no consumer power.

“At the moment, they are passive recipients at the mercy of the system and what it is kind enough to provide for them. We have to give patients power.”

The names of the hospitals where the 500 consultants work are not included in the advertisement. Sensitivities run so high that even daring to criticise the way that the NHS is funded is not without risk.

An opinion poll conducted for the think-tank Reform, which is acting as an umbrella organisation for the doctors’ group, concluded that the public is not wedded to the present structure of the NHS.

It found that only 39 per cent of voters agreed that “extra spending over the last few years has resulted in real improvements in the NHS”, while 54 per cent disagreed.

When presented with the statement “In its present form the NHS is unlikely ever to meet public demands, how- ever much we spend on it”, 70 per cent agreed. Only 28 per cent disagreed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1014431,00.html

[celebrateOften]

So what hapened???? Have the HMOs grabbed up the $s and shackled the MDs and started diagnosing and denying the patients yet?

Does this sound the demise of the NHS or is it just a bunch of Greedy consultants on a political kick

Can it survive in its present form or must it change?

Do you have any faith left in it as an effectice Health Service Organisation?

February 25, 2004

Doctors want all patients to buy insurance

By Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor

Underfunded NHS can never meet demands, say consultants

FIVE HUNDRED hospital consultants have called for a radical reform of the NHS to put power into patients’ hands.

Rejecting the Government’s claim that a tax-based healthcare system is best, the doctors say that systems in Europe, based on compulsory insurance, work better.

Such systems liberate doctors and patients, encourage innovation and are fairer, according to a new group, Doctors for Reform, which launches itself with a full-page advertisement on page 18 of The Times today.

The 500 consultants who signed up for the group say that they are committed to the NHS ideals of equitable and universal healthcare but believe that this could be better achieved by other methods of financing.

“The NHS as we know it has had its day,” Professor Karol Sikora, an oncologist and one of the founder members of the group, said. “You can fiddle about with it and patch it up, but with an ageing population and high-tech healthcare, something has to give.

“Everything else we need today we can get very easily: air travel, holidays, cars. Why can’t we get healthcare that easily? The form of funding is the key.

“To change it is a radical step. Politicians are very ner-vous. But we have to do it if we want a system that is focused on the patient and open to innovative ideas.”

The Labour Party reacted to the group, which claims to be independent and non-party, by claiming that it was the Conservative Party in disguise. A spokesman said: “I wouldn’t want doctors to be misled by this Tory front organisation.”

But the group says that it has members from all three major parties, including a Liberal Democrat, and is not promoting the Conservative policy of patient passports.

One of the founders, Dr Christoph Lees, an obstetrician, said that the group had been disappointed by a report by Derek Wanless for the Treasury two years ago which concluded that taxation was the best way to pay for healthcare.

“We need to go back to the founding principles of the NHS, providing a genuinely equitable system,” he said. “Continental countries such as France, Germany and Switzerland do that better than we do.”

The group believes that a system based on compulsory social insurance would work better. In such systems, everybody pays for a basic insurance plan defined by law, with insurance companies competing for customers. The policies must provide a mandatory and comprehensive package set at the national level. Employers may or may not contribute: in France and Germany they do, in Switzerland they do not.

Poorer people have their insurance premiums subsidised, or paid virtually in full.

Patients can go to a wide variety of providers for care and operations. An alternative is a voucher system, as in Denmark, which patients can use to get care from wherever they want.

Such systems can provide flexibility, genuine choice, and excellent healthcare, Doctors for Reform says, giving doctors and patients freedom and getting away from the centrally planned and politically driven NHS.

“The NHS was conceived more than half a century ago, at a time of rationing and considerable poverty,” the group says in its manifesto. “We once believed it was the finest healthcare system in the world. Today few healthcare professionals would make that claim.”

Dr David Wrede, a gynae-cologist and another of the group’s founders, said: “The NHS is like a huge lumbering supertanker, slow to change direction. And it isn’t equitable.

“There is really a four-tier service. Poor provision in poor areas, excellent care if you happen to be near a teaching hospital, health insurance for elective operations for those who can afford it, and cash. If you have cash, you can get treatment right away.”

Dr Wrede is a Liberal Democrat who stood as parliament-ary candidate for the party in the 1992 general election. Another supporter and signa-tory is Professor Philip Steer, who advised Robin Cook when he was Labour health spokesman in Opposition.

Dr Maurice Slevin, an oncologist and a founder of the group, said: “I don’t think the NHS has a future when patients have no consumer power.

“At the moment, they are passive recipients at the mercy of the system and what it is kind enough to provide for them. We have to give patients power.”

The names of the hospitals where the 500 consultants work are not included in the advertisement. Sensitivities run so high that even daring to criticise the way that the NHS is funded is not without risk.

An opinion poll conducted for the think-tank Reform, which is acting as an umbrella organisation for the doctors’ group, concluded that the public is not wedded to the present structure of the NHS.

It found that only 39 per cent of voters agreed that “extra spending over the last few years has resulted in real improvements in the NHS”, while 54 per cent disagreed.

When presented with the statement “In its present form the NHS is unlikely ever to meet public demands, how- ever much we spend on it”, 70 per cent agreed. Only 28 per cent disagreed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1014431,00.html

[samran]

There is merit with what they are saying, and it doesn't mean the death on the NHS.

Complusory health insurance - based on a small % of salary (a bit like the medicare levy in OZ, or even the 750 baht/month salary deduction in Thailand) means that people only pay the levy if they can afford to. People can then choose to visit the doctor they want to, wherever they want to, for GP treatment. ths is the 'consumer power' they talked about. The government then re-imburses the doctor. For me, when I'm in OZ means that i can junk a doctor if i don't like him. Good doctors will always be in demand. Whereas when I was in the UK, I was told to register at the Isle of Dogs medical centre there on Westferry Rd, and to lump it or leave it if i didn't like the doctor.

You just have to make sure that access to quality medical services remains free, or highly subsidised - as is in OZ at least, while still giving consumers the choice.

[yeti]

Never heard of NHS before. Is that a name fot the 30 THb scheme (whic is now free)?

Compulsory health insurance in Thailand, I don't see how it could work...

[Dave the Dude]

There is merit with what they are saying, and it doesn't mean the death on the NHS.

Complusory health insurance - based on a small % of salary (a bit like the medicare levy in OZ, or even the 750 baht/month salary deduction in Thailand) means that people only pay the levy if they can afford to. People can then choose to visit the doctor they want to, wherever they want to, for GP treatment. ths is the 'consumer power' they talked about. The government then re-imburses the doctor. For me, when I'm in OZ means that i can junk a doctor if i don't like him. Good doctors will always be in demand. Whereas when I was in the UK, I was told to register at the Isle of Dogs medical centre there on Westferry Rd, and to lump it or leave it if i didn't like the doctor.

You just have to make sure that access to quality medical services remains free, or highly subsidised - as is in OZ at least, while still giving consumers the choice.

Hi All

On a related note and sorry for being so dim, i was wondering if Expats can still return to the UK and use NHS services ? I dont intend to de-register with my doc when I leave for LOS, although I will tell the Inland Revenue that I'v ceased my Self Employed status. Any tips or advice would be welcome

Regards

Dave the Dude

[Prakanong]

There is merit with what they are saying, and it doesn't mean the death on the NHS.

Complusory health insurance - based on a small % of salary (a bit like the medicare levy in OZ, or even the 750 baht/month salary deduction in Thailand) means that people only pay the levy if they can afford to. People can then choose to visit the doctor they want to, wherever they want to, for GP treatment. ths is the 'consumer power' they talked about. The government then re-imburses the doctor. For me, when I'm in OZ means that i can junk a doctor if i don't like him. Good doctors will always be in demand. Whereas when I was in the UK, I was told to register at the Isle of Dogs medical centre there on Westferry Rd, and to lump it or leave it if i didn't like the doctor.

You just have to make sure that access to quality medical services remains free, or highly subsidised - as is in OZ at least, while still giving consumers the choice.

Hi All

On a related note and sorry for being so dim, i was wondering if Expats can still return to the UK and use NHS services ? I dont intend to de-register with my doc when I leave for LOS, although I will tell the Inland Revenue that I'v ceased my Self Employed status. Any tips or advice would be welcome

Regards

Dave the Dude

I may be wrong but this is the current information i have - someone here definately knows better

After 2 years away you should not be using it for free - but how would they know?

If you are registered with a Dr it will be easier to use but i can distinctly remember a BBC documentry where a hospital close to Heathrow would not treat a guy just off the plane from BKK as he had been out of the country for years and not paying anything - pals have since told me if he went upcountry he would not be pulled

I have been told to pay my reduced NI yearly to still qualify for pension rights and NHS treatment if I return - I still need to sort this out.....

[Dave the Dude]

Hi All

On a related note and sorry for being so dim, i was wondering if Expats can still return to the UK and use NHS services ? I dont intend to de-register with my doc when I leave for LOS, although I will tell the Inland Revenue that I'v ceased my Self Employed status. Any tips or advice would be welcome

Regards

Dave the Dude

I may be wrong but this is the current information i have - someone here definately knows better

After 2 years away you should not be using it for free - but how would they know?

If you are registered with a Dr it will be easier to use but i can distinctly remember a BBC documentry where a hospital close to Heathrow would not treat a guy just off the plane from BKK as he had been out of the country for years and not paying anything - pals have since told me if he went upcountry he would not be pulled

I have been told to pay my reduced NI yearly to still qualify for pension rights and NHS treatment if I return - I still need to sort this out.....

Thanks Prakanon for the reply. Ill also check out reduced NI contributions cos I was under the (mis)impression that i'v paid enough to qualify now and any further dosh was just 'p1ssing in the wind'. I do know the max years is changing to make a level period whether ones Male or Female,that will reduce mens required years. I'll keep you posted

Regards

[tim armstrong]

Hi all,

The cost problems with the NHS and most other western countries is largely about the cost of drugs, 'pathologizing' every minor complaint and the absence of real health education, and promotion campaigns that would reduce doctor visits for preventable complaints.. Some Drs groups and most drug companies do not really want to change this situation.

In developing countries its about very basic health care, eg clean water, sanitation, and hygiene, and not enough interest by drug companies, because there is no money ther for them.

Tim

[Nignoy]

There is merit with what they are saying, and it doesn't mean the death on the NHS.

Complusory health insurance - based on a small % of salary (a bit like the medicare levy in OZ, or even the 750 baht/month salary deduction in Thailand) means that people only pay the levy if they can afford to. People can then choose to visit the doctor they want to, wherever they want to, for GP treatment. ths is the 'consumer power' they talked about. The government then re-imburses the doctor. For me, when I'm in OZ means that i can junk a doctor if i don't like him. Good doctors will always be in demand. Whereas when I was in the UK, I was told to register at the Isle of Dogs medical centre there on Westferry Rd, and to lump it or leave it if i didn't like the doctor.

You just have to make sure that access to quality medical services remains free, or highly subsidised - as is in OZ at least, while still giving consumers the choice.

Surely a vouchered System like germany or the australian medicare system ,would improve the NHS no end giving the patient the right to choose who looks after their health!!no need to be put on waiting lists for so called non essential surgery and treatment ,being well known as a critic of most things australian,and not a very healthy person, I have nothing but praise for the australian medicare system,if we had not left UK in 96 I would be seriously Brown Bread now, you cannot blame the state of the nhs on all the immigrants, just a case of to many ######s running the system Nignoy