Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 September 2008
09:525807#1
A think tank called 'Reform' has brought out a report calling for a new type of healthcare system. I quote:
"""""Analysis in a new report by Reform suggests that the best performing health services have two key characteristics - universal cover and the use of insurance incentives. Insurance incentives are responsible for achieving greater value and a focus on prevention. Most importantly, as a result of defining individual entitlements, they are capable of empowering service users by giving them real control over their healthcare.
The report proposes a new model of healthcare, a National Health Protection System, which draws on the successful elements of international systems while retaining the key strength of our current system, universality. The new system would see every individual spend a tax-funded premium of £2,000 per year (the amount the Government currently spends per head a year on the NHS) on a Health Protection Provider of their choice. Individuals would be able to choose who was responsible for looking after their health.
The model will lead to de-politicisation of the health service, with the role of government being transformed from a provider of services to a regulator. This fits in with the Conservative ideas around the need for an independent NHS board. Other essential elements would be access to high quality information on health conditions and outcomes, and the development of a supplementary insurance market to cover rare drugs and luxury items.""""""""""
It sound like an interesting way forward. One thing is certain, the present NHS is not delivering, despite a huge increase in cash proving that throwing money at something does not solve its problems.
if anyone is interested then you can find out more on
www.reform.co.ukGuest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
9 September 2008
10:315813#2
Sounds very much like back-door privatisation. A lot of the reason that 'throwing money' at the NHS has not worked is that the emphasis has been taken away from health care and put into ill-concieved 'prevention' run by even more admin rather than medical staff. This has resulted in monolithic PCT's with rooms full of (colourful and expensive) leaflets and no way to distribute them. This is no exageration I have been in the one down here sorting out leaflets for the local pre-school because they needed the information and it was the only way to get it for them. Spend health care money on health care and we could see improvements all round and transfer the 'preventative' side to Social Services so that they can start and do some real good.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 September 2008
11:035816#3
There is nothing back door about it Chris. This is open and full scale privatisation of the NHS that they are advocating.
Sadly I do not see any political Party taking up these suggestions because it would be too politically sensitive.
Sad, because I can see the potential for this to improve our health services.
What I think is important about it is the universal nature of it, retaining the most important principle of all, healthcare free at the point of delivery.
How that healthcare is delivered is not important, that it is free and of the highest quality and is speedy and efficient are all vital. Changing the role of Government from provider to regulator makes a lot of sense and de-politizising health must be good.
9 September 2008
12:485824#4
At present the Healthcare providers are non accountable. That is why you have such stupid decision making - I have seen the quality of those decision makers at first hand and am very unimpressed. They dont seem to understand the real needs of people but are in a constant struggle to get a hiher salary.
Last year when I spent some time in William Harvey ( having the wrong operation!) I saw nurses having to do things they didnt want to and admin systems that were patent nonsense. If only the manager could have spent a few days in an NHS bed then they would see the reality.
Sorry but the system is failing radically ( All of Lindas sisters are nurses ) and I dont know the answer - I have seen the french system from inside and that seems to work very well - but I understand that the government is wanting to copy the american system - which make hospitals only for emergencies and puts everything else out to private care - WE dont have that local support or beds - and we dont have the money to pay for it - as dont many poor americans....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 September 2008
12:565826#5
David. No even I would not accuse the Government of that, turning it into a system that the poor would not be able to afford. Their failure with the NHS are enough to damn them without raising that kind of issue.
I agree with you about the French system, it really puts the NHS to shame. (as do many, many other countries)
You are right about the mess that the NHS remains in and it does need radical overhaul.
I find the Reform ideas attractive though I very much doubt that any Government will have the courage to adopt them. If any Party did then their opponents would make hay with groundless scare stories, we have seen that before.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
9 September 2008
14:595833#6
My mother once worked in an American hospital and it used to upset her so much, seeing elderly patients coming in every week to buy medication and pay off their bills out of their pensions, she took to hiding in the loo when certain people walked in. An American great aunt of mine had to sell her home when her husband became ill just to pay for the time he needed in hospital. I am not sure that we want to learn anything the Americans care to teach us about health care.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 September 2008
15:475834#7
I agree Chris and no-one advocates that type of system here, certainly not Reform or any of our mainstream Parties.
9 September 2008
20:215845#8
Health care and social care are cornerstones of a decent and humane society. In private companies hands they are simply commercial enterprise. Should we have to buy what a decent society recognises as a human right, the same as air, water and light? Just because health and social care and suppoprt cost money doesn't remove them from the list of human and humane expectations. It just means we should plan effectively as a sopciety for their provision for all.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
9 September 2008
20:465850#9
we have seen the results of private comanies involvement in the health service.
cleaning and food provision.
i have a feeling that the NHS will absorb as much money as is available, and we will all have different solutions to the problems.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
10 September 2008
07:525864#10
I cannot stand the prospect of privatisation and looking at the 'reform' website to suggest that they are apolitical would be a stretch, especially the media coverage section topics that demonstrates their true position. However it is true to say that the NHS is failing us and serious reform of some kind is necessary. The complexity of what the service offers has increased exponentially and will continue to do so. I think some of the points raised by 'reform' are valid; the NHS should be depoliticised to an extent leaving it to be run by those that best understand health care. I do however disagree with this blatant attempt privatise something, that Bern rightly points out is a basic human right in civilised society. What we would find is that those at the top of these new providers would actually not be experts in health care but much the same as those who are making ineffective decisions at the moment, the only difference being that they were primarily trying to turn a profit at the same time.
It is all well and good applying business models to public services like the NHS but as I have expressed in the past, they are not businesses but services. Their primary output is not measurable in money and so to try and calculate its ineffectiveness by the amount of financing it 'wastes' is pointless, although I am not saying that the NHS currently doing an effective job! By bringing in private providers across the whole system we only widen a gap that already exists between public and private health care. 'If you've got more cash, you are more entitled to faster better treatment' This would be perpetuated by companies trying to undercut each other, headhunting consultants and all sorts of other hideous corporate behaviour that has no place in healthcare, or any other public service for that fact.
What if we were to apply these same sorts of model to our police forces, or god forbid our armed services? What these wonderful people provide us, at a financial loss, is exactly the same: protection of our liberties. We all understand that our troops are not being properly equipped, why? Because someone has tried to throw finance into something that has nothing (hopefully) to do with cash!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 September 2008
09:135870#11
Bern. Take your logic to it logical conclusion would you nationalise all food production and distribution? What a hellish prospect.
Howard/DT1. Yes we can see the impact of private companies in health. Just look at private hospitals and the quality of care and cleanliness they provide. I am so thankful that we have Private medical Insurance so we have the choice and opportunity to use such as The Chaucer.
There are many countries with far better health services than we have in which private businesses dominate. As I say it is not who provides the care that is important but the care being universal and free at the point of delivery and its quality and speed.
I am glad to see at least DT1 acknowledges the need for reform but to block out lessons available from overseas for some ideaological attachment to State provision and/or opposition to private enterprise is utterly absurd.
It is this ideological attachment to a State provision that is so destructive in this country.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
10 September 2008
09:365874#12
Barry. Take your logic to it logical conclusion would you privatise the emergency services? What a hellish prospect.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 September 2008
19:535905#13
dt
whilst i agree with you that medical practitioners are the most important part of the health service, they are not money people.
business managers at hospitals only look at the bottom line.
if doctors made decisions what could be purchased for the nhs, it would shut down in no time.
we were told yesterday that if certain cancer drugs were bought by the nhs, they would take up about half the total budget.
i can only see politicians as the ones to have the final say, they have a vested interest in getting peoples votes.
10 September 2008
21:405914#14
Barry - the main difference between private and state health care is the customer care: the smile from the nurse, the butter instead of marge - the doctors and nurses are from the same pool, the equipment is pretty standard, and anyone can clean better! It is, frankly, morally reprehensible to withhold lifesaving or enhancing treatment from a human being for reasons of financial status.